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.