The way I read that legislation it just preserves the right of people to rent their property and prohibits municipalities from stopping that.

It also says "A municipality MAY adopt an ordinance........" Nothing requires the municipality to do so.

Other than that I don't see anything adding additional restrictions. On it's face, it looks like it just preserves rights that municipalities already have.

It is SO irritating when people read the bill before forming an opinion. Bravo Tilton for taking the extra step.

If you own property... the municipality will get its money back.
I don't think any municipality is credibly concerned with a second home owner... especially one that does not have residency in that community.

When voters can't afford a primary home, or rent, that sort of takes precedent.
The elected official that ignores it quickly becomes the focus of their angst.

Compromise
 

Interesting that only 3 of the 7 bullets on that list are all that's read by some people. But I guess on the other side the last 4 bullets will only be read by the.

Remember a compromise is that each side gives something up. But I guess for some folks a compromise means getting what you want?

Oh well, good luck tonight. I think the Selectmen should listen very carefully to the wishes of its citizens, either way.

If you have been in NH for a while, you determine that a compromise is not what they come up with.

They drag their feet until it reaches a fever pitch... for which there is no easy fix... and then they tip-toe and have to keep coming back to the table for more.

The other bullet points don't matter, because our local municipalities are not in the same situation. We don't have a demand problem at our businesses. Covid is having little to no effect on us.

Unless you are asserting that the last 4 bullets give the towns rights that they do not already have, then this is not a compromise--the state is giving up nothing. Maybe you should just thank Tilton for his close reading?

The bill reminds me of the Campground M&R bill.
The Legislature thought it was a great idea... but they ran directly into the middle class, and that only lasted long enough to hit the books before legislators lost their seats and the bill was repealed.

When the market is truly looked at. If tourism businesses - service businesses - can not afford reasonably priced help... they go under. As each one goes under it puts pressure on the others to take up the customer demand until the price of labor inflates to the point that the tourists avoid the area.

Then the housing prices start to crash back down to earth.

Compromise
 

I love perspective!

It gives towns legislative rights they do not currently have (but it is true they could legislate it on their own). I guess if you look at it that way you are correct that the town gets nothing (that they couldn't do themselves)

Guess what? If allowed to look at the other side of the compromise, the homeowner also retains a right that they also currently have.

Instead of taking anyone's rights away, it preserves the rights of both parties. What a concept!

I know I know it doesn't have a winner and loser:

And you're welcome!

compromise
[ˈkämprəˌmīz]
NOUN
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both" · [more]
synonyms:
agreement · understanding · settlement · terms · accommodation · [more]
VERB
settle a dispute by mutual concession.
"in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
synonyms:
meet each other halfway · find the middle ground · come to terms · [more]
accept standards that are lower than is desirable.
"we were not prepared to compromise on safety"
synonyms:
change one's mind · give way · give in · yield · acquiesce · adapt · retract · do a U-turn · eat one's words · do an about-turn
bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.
"situations in which his troops could be compromised"

Honestly,

If there is a win-win where everybody feels like they didn't get exactly what they wanted, but they can live with it, then it's the best thing to do.

If I am offending people by applauding an action to preserve everybody's rights instead of taking them away, then I sincerely apologize.

I would like to reiterate that the People of Gilford should get what the majority wants - whichever way it goes.

Don’t worry Cal. It’s impossible for anyone to offend someone else. It’s passive not active. A person has to feel offended internally. That’s their choice, and not the fault of any speaker/writer.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Actually the homeowner did not currently have the right.
We do not have the right do with our property as we want; that is what the purpose of zoning is... and why those properties are zoned residential.

If Conway, Meredith, Laconia, Gilford... etc wanted to, they could either rezone an area, or allow a zoning variance.

Like I stated, not the first time we've seen the cycle. It is a tourism problem that they never seem to overcome... always running hot then cold then hot again.

This is a great point. There is definitely some number of rentals per year that makes a property a business instead of the AirBnB marketing ploy of "sharing economy".

Actually for us it was always the area.
Laconia would be Lake Winnisquam - I think a couple exist in the Eastman Drive area, or Weirs Beach. Weirs Beach, I believe is largely already zoned resort/commercial in most of its area.

For Gilford, that would be Glendale and Gunstock - though probably not zoned that way as Gilford has dealt with zoning far less than Laconia.

These are tourist areas that the municipalities hoped would support hotel/motel operations.
Problem is, as an investor with that mindset, I would more likely go for a property that cost less capital than a hotel/motel to get started. Develop the property for the greatest return on capital... and if working well... buy into the next property as economy of scale would begin to take over.

The recent tourism report has the State hovering around $6 billion, most of that occurring in the summer months. So it does bode that the lakes would be a sizable factor along with the seacoast.

There have been some really interesting discussions on this recently. The Senate Bill referenced above does one single thing: removes the prerogative of localities to decide what is best for them: ban or approve STRs. Instead STRs will be legitimized everywhere.

In Gilford there are 2 open questions:

1) Should STRs be allowed in residential zones

New Hampshire Municipal Association makes a strong case the in an area like Gilford, under current zoning, they are not allowed - https://www.nh.gov/osi/planning/reso...oryT_pOnYvpDl4

A close reading of Gilford zoning ordinances seems to conform to this reasoning.

However currently, in practice, STRs exist in Gilford and the town takes no action against them.

then

2) If STRs are allowed, should they be regulated?

Which is what the proposed ordinance would do.


This is creating a very confusing position where some people are advocating against the ordinance because they don't want their STRs regulated by the town, and other people are also advocating against the ordinance because they don't want STRs legitimized... quite a pickle!

Regulations Delayed
 

The short therm rental regulations proposed in Gilford will be studied further.

Any implementation will be at least one year away.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...f7a80ef96.html

Draft
 

Here is a draft of the STR ordinance: https://www.gilfordnh.org/file/2427/..._final_PDF.pdf

It looks very much like what the State of NH is trying to put in place state-wide.
Looks like that first inspection, septic system inspection, fire and safety issues, ability to remove rubbish, etc... put a pretty healthy burden on the permit applicant.

It also states explicitly that there are a number of infractions that will cause the permit to be revoked. The infractions seem reasonable as well.

I agree with Stevengilford. Some on this forum will read it and say this amounts to absolutely nothing (some already have!). Others will say if this is truly and competently enforced, that it should do the trick, and that's "Their read".

History tells us it does not work.

Not accurate on people calling this absolutely nothing--we called the state allowing towns to do what towns already have the right to do, absolutely nothing.

But focusing on the issues--this looks pretty good for what's in the document, but without knowing Gilford's definition of noise, as referenced in the link, it's hard to know if this is meaningful. I hope others know the answer here.

One other thing I infer from the document and some comments above--the issue is not small homes renting to a single family of four, for example. It's mid-size or larger homes with groups of adults having vacation fun night after night. Understandable

The nature of the beast is to get around restrictions.
It is one of the things that capitalism does very well given time.

Circumventing becomes a sport at this point:

“Sorry, we no longer do weekly rentals to multiple families in the same house. If you’re going to rent this place, it’s very important that you book at least 1 month and that you are all the same family. I can only take payment from one of you.

(But feel free to collect $ from your friends,er, I mean family and you can check out a 3 weeks early with no penalty ;)

PS: We have a car you can borrow. It gives the neighborhood a more permanent look. The neighbors like the appearance of less turnover. Enjoy your whole summer, er, week long vacation!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

three strikes permit?
 

If the permit rules say "three strikes and you lose the permit", can I just complain about my neighbor three times and he's out of business? Of course, the Selectmen can hold a hearing, but they are a non-judicial body, and getting on their schedule may take weeks. This sort of plan needs a lot of thought and can easily get way too complicated. And the PD doesn't want to be in a position of deciding which party is TOO rowdy, and which is OK.

I do have a friend in another part of the state who rents his own home occasionally. It is quite large and has significant land. The town rules limit the total number of people allowed on site for any reason. No events, no weddings, no fireworks, etc. It's pretty easy for the property host to count heads. If you rent Sunday to Saturday, there are no Saturday parties.

I think the Newspaper article does a great job of describing the issue and has a fair analysis of both sides of it.....

It doesn't rely on assumptions like "only non-residents do it" I suspect that's not the case. "They are already violating the zoning" when the document provided only says to check your own town ordinances to find that out - and no one has provided any Town ordinance that shows this is true in Gilford. And so on, and so on......

If this waits until the end of the year, and the State enacts essentially the same law mid-year, this might be a good way to spell-out Gilford's control of these rentals. Whatever it looks like in the end will, if nothing else, be spelled out and everybody can work from the same playbook...

Some have said that enforcement of all of this after the dust settles may-well be an issue and I agree. You full-timers would know your own police better than anybody. This is going to be the key to whether or not everyone can live with all of this harmoniously. I know nothing about the Law enforcement in Gilford but have no reason to believe that they can't pull it off. I hope so, anyway. They not only have to exercise discretion for small violations, but they should also not hesitate to revoke the permit for repeat offenders...

Thanks to all. This has been a very informative discussion....

You don't seem to understand what a ''resident'' is.
I am a resident of the State, but not a resident of Gilford.

The threat to elected officials are those that represent the residents of each specific district; and the threat of a lost election does not bother elected officials that do not intend to seek re-election.

And if you read local papers and expressed opinions, facing that electorate is a no-win situation on this issue.
The economy will self-adjust, but maybe not in the way that many think it will. We find that to be the outcome more often than not.

I was only indicating that the blanket statement that primary-home residents don't offer their property for STR is just not so. It is the base assumption offered by others that everything else flows from. There are as may different owner situations as there are places to rent. Like Descant, I know someone who rents out their primary residence - of a house in a town they are RESIDENTS of.

Just pointing out that all of this isn't just a money-maker for out-of-towners. In some cases it helps people meet their living needs. And as long as the housing prices keep rising, taxes keep going-up and "ahem" some of us are getting older, the STR thing becomes an option for some to retain their homes on the most beautiful place in the world.

Those of us that live here full-time are lucky. To give up the place you love because your fixed income can no longer support your home is hard. It is a privilege to live where we live. If I ever get to that place where i am living on the edge of affordability, I would look at the option myself. I don't want to leave here...

Correct
 

We lived in upstate NY near Saratoga and there were many people in the town that would rent their home during the 8 week racing session in Jul and Aug, often to the same people year in and year out. They made enough in rental fees to pay their annual property taxes and the cost of their rental wherever it was.
I do agree most homeowners do not rent their primary residence for short term rentals, never say never.

Dave

Primary home people do rent their homes for STR... some for rooms... like an actual B&B. But more as a LTR.
Some homeowners would rent their home out to escape Bike Week, but those were almost always in the areas that a zoned commercial/resort, or similar, that I previously spoke of.
These are not in any danger of local regulation. In fact, these are why local regulations are so hard to tailor. The State of NH wouldn't need any new legislation to protect those.

I respect your opinion, but even when offered as a fact (without support), it is an opinion. You may not think so, but there are homeowners with primary residences that rent their homes as a room, some rent LTR, and some as STRs. This is a fact even if it doesn't fit your narrative.

BTW the guy 5 houses away from me (his primary residence, but he has a second home) Rents STR for only 2 weeks each Summer. It's a nice set-up with a dock and 5 BRs. People bring their own watercraft, and they use the on-property paddleboards and kayaks (which scares me from a liability insurance issue, but that's off-topic). He gets an incredible $12,800 a week. It more than pays his taxes and insurance, and he gets to enjoy his home the rest of the year. Yes, people like this exist. Again, there are as many STR situations as there are rentals to choose on AirBNB and VRBO. There are no absolute descriptions.

I stated that some primary homeowners do rent rooms as STR, but more as LTR.
That is simply a fact of the market.

Homeowners can take on roommates just as easily as someone renting a home without a no sublet agreement can take on a roommate.

My narrative is that all these things have been happening in this are for at least the last five and a half decades that I've been alive; before there was ever any zoning, permitting, or even paying Meals & Room tax.

Something changed... and the narrative is that more of it is happening than before and something that was less perceived has now become more perceived. The government response has been steady steps toward waylaying the local outcry... and that is also fact that can be determined by the slow steady progression of the rules/regulation/taxation.

And the political fallout from that slow progression...

In regard to the Conway lawsuit, the judge had ruled in favor of the rental owners.
STRs are not a violation of the Conway zoning.

Zoning is fluid. The wording that exists today can be amended.

Each municipality is going to have to decide the fate of its commercial motel/hotel/B&B operations.

Laconia, for the most part, has already taken the hit... most of them in the Weirs section are gone. I think they only have the Naswa and Margate?

Meredith and Gilford are the ones that have to make the big decision.
It is why I think that Rusty was lucky to sell Church Landing, and shouldn't invest in the Gunstock project. Church Landing is taxes to Meredith, and the Gunstock project is taxes to Gilford; but I don't see the ROI for the investors that is worth the risk.

And:

The Lazy E

Channel Cottages

The Half Moon

Lake Winnipesaukee Motel

Sun Valley Cottages

The Summit

Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages

Thanks for the correction... it was sort of why I had the question mark.

I know we have some big jobs for the Weirs section, and I think that they may have the option of STR for them. They seem very modern functional; which is different than the designs that I get requested to do for most primary home owners.

The motels in the weirs went condo because of the amount of money the former motel owner can make selling them as Condos, it had nothing to do with people buying them to rent them as airbnb. Surely that's not what you are saying.

Rental Bill Changes
 

The State Senate had a hearing on January 25th on the bill regarding short term rentals submitted by Senator Harold French. At the hearing, Senator French offered amendments to the bill.

Senator French has done some good things and is very responsive to input from Citizens. He seems to be a real "common sense" guy.

I asked him to submit legislation a couple of years ago and he was receptive and interested. He made some suggestions about the language, attended the hearings and testified for the bill, and the bill was passed.

Back to the subject at hand: The short term rental bill amendment would allow communities to adopt ordinances to have an inspection of the premises to ensure it meets minimum housing standards.

From The Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...98503b1ba.html

People don't move from an STR like a motel, to go back to an STR in most cases.
Motels close for various reasons... retirement of the owners and no one willing to take over the business, etc. But competition plays a role, at a certain point an STR regardless of type may not be able to compete with another STR regardless of type... the market moves. Changing a property to another format is always an option; but that would be because the motel wasn't as profitable against the competition which held the profits down.

If someone would have told me three years ago that black/black windows would be the hot item in my line of work - I would laughed so hard I would need a doctor. Currently, it is rare that the customer is not looking for black/black windows. The companies that do black/black well... with the right price point... they are doing very well. Three years from now what will be the demand... I have no idea... but the same can be stated for STR, condos, or really any market segment.

As the market moves, the companies that do it best survive and prosper, those that don't... tend to die a death one way or the other.

Disagree. I bought a motel to condo conversion in 1980 specifically for STR. Many of the other buyers at the time did the same. Yes, the owners wanted to retire and move, and, as with many other Weirs motels, to continue running it as a "modern" motel would have cost a lot more than they, or a business buyer, could make back in a few years. Some of my first tenants were people who had rented from the motel in the past. They looked around and decided that motels weren't going to be around for long and bought conversions as well. Used it for a few weeks and rent the rest of the time. The catch was, Gunstock had no snowmaking then and also that year, no natural snow. Nobody wanted to rent winter short term. In a couple of years, the price doubled, so I sold it. Prices have continued to climb and I believe many of those units are STR because people have mortgages and much higher taxes.

Cherry Valley?
I know Cedar Lodge went condo so the owners could recapture capital, and it is still STR... but I didn't know there were others. I thought most went timeshare.

I don't doubt your situation, however, it has been talked about on here at length about how the motels of the weirs going condo negatively impacted area businesses because of the lower utilization rates of condo owners vs motel renters. Now that Short term rentals are being discussed in a negative way, you are suggesting and twisting it in way that people sold their motels as condos so people could rerent them on VRBO. And that somehow the VRBO rental in a former motel is somehow worse since gunstock now makes snow. That is downright comical and just shows the internet never fails that someone can twist anything to serve their opinion.

A judge just denied the attempt in North Conway to ban short-term rentals that are not owner-occupied. Just came across WMUR.

Hi Codeman. I posted that already, (post 69). WMUR must be a little behind.