Gilford to have meeting on Short Term Rentals Monday

[frank m.]

https://legiscan.com/NH/text/SB249/2022

[Descant]

Originally Posted by frank m.

https://legiscan.com/NH/text/SB249/2022

I'm curious as to how this will deal with pre-existing zoning.

[FlyingScot]

Having now read the link--separate from this specific issue--these laws where states limit what towns can do (or the feds limit what states can do) really bug me. It's one thing if it's some big fundamental issue, like the right to vote or other constitutional stuff. But why should someone in Concord be telling a town what is or is not right for that town on something as mundane as short term rentals. Furthermore--why do they even care about this at a state level?

I wrote before that as someone who rented short term for years (decades), I think they are generally good. But this whole thing looks like AirBnB and other big business interests pressuring towns via the state. F them

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Having now read the link--separate from this specific issue--these laws where states limit what towns can do (or the feds limit what states can do) really bug me. It's one thing if it's some big fundamental issue, like the right to vote or other constitutional stuff. But why should someone in Concord be telling a town what is or is not right for that town on something as mundane as short term rentals. Furthermore--why do they even care about this at a state level?

I wrote before that as someone who rented short term for years (decades), I think they are generally good. But this whole thing looks like AirBnB and other big business interests pressuring towns via the state. F them

I don't think the State or City would really care if there was an abundance of affordable workforce housing... Unfortunately, there is a huge shortage of affordable housing and short term/airbnb/vrbo investors gobble up what little inventory is left thus driving the prices even higher. While it might be financially beneficial to an investor, the neighborhood pays the price.

Woodsy

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I don't think the State or City would really care if there was an abundance of affordable workforce housing... Unfortunately, there is a huge shortage of affordable housing and short term/airbnb/vrbo investors gobble up what little inventory is left thus driving the prices even higher. While it might be financially beneficial to an investor, the neighborhood pays the price.

Woodsy

I don't think this has anything to do with low cost workforce housing not being available. We're talking about short term vacation rentals--expensive shorefront where the owner wants to offset high taxes and get a little cash flow when he is not using the property. As a side effect, this may benefit workforce housing. Owners who can't get the high summer rents will rent September through May for cheap just to keep somebody in the house, heat on, no vandalism, snow cleared, etc.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Descant

I don't think this has anything to do with low cost workforce housing not being available. We're talking about short term vacation rentals--expensive shorefront where the owner wants to offset high taxes and get a little cash flow when he is not using the property. As a side effect, this may benefit workforce housing. Owners who can't get the high summer rents will rent September through May for cheap just to keep somebody in the house, heat on, no vandalism, snow cleared, etc.

It does though. It is not just waterfront or even water access communities like Suissevale/ Balmoral etc. 5-10 years ago you may put a house in the rental program and done a winter rental. VRBO and Home Away have made it so easy to do short-term rentals, that most rentable houses are gobbled up by investors and rented out weekly.

My son is moving on Sunday , it took 6 months to find a decent place that was semi-reasonable. He is a manager at a parts store, he is local workforce. There is nothing out there.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

I don't think this has anything to do with low cost workforce housing not being available. We're talking about short term vacation rentals--expensive shorefront where the owner wants to offset high taxes and get a little cash flow when he is not using the property. As a side effect, this may benefit workforce housing. Owners who can't get the high summer rents will rent September through May for cheap just to keep somebody in the house, heat on, no vandalism, snow cleared, etc.

The businesses that want labor September to May want year round labor. The summer tourism businesses need labor from May to September. Lots of summer closed early or curtailed their hours, many of the year-round are running on overtime
employees to the point of near failure.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I don't think the State or City would really care if there was an abundance of affordable workforce housing... Unfortunately, there is a huge shortage of affordable housing and short term/airbnb/vrbo investors gobble up what little inventory is left thus driving the prices even higher. While it might be financially beneficial to an investor, the neighborhood pays the price.

Woodsy

Just to be clear--the bill in the link prohibits towns from banning short term rentals--it is a pro AirBNB bill. It will drive up the price of workforce housing as you warn

[Phantom]

It still is not clear to me the definition of "Short Term Rental" -- ???

1-3 days?
1 Week ?
<30 Days ?


For example, our condo association restricts/ prohibits "Rentals" of less than 30 days.

.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It still is not clear to me the definition of "Short Term Rental" -- ???

1-3 days?
1 Week ?
<30 Days ?


For example, our condo association restricts/ prohibits "Rentals" of less than 30 days.

.

Since the bill prohibits the prohibition of short term rentals, and nobody has ever discussed restricting long term rentals, this distinction does not really matter. All of the time periods in your post would be allowed in every town. (FLL might note that hourly rentals would be OK too)

But you raise a great point--this lack of definition leading to everything being allowed everywhere is another sign that this is driven by corporate interests, not citizens.

[mswlogo]

Yeah we had an issue with renters from a house a few houses over. Luckily I had a lot of frontage and so did my neighbor that was full time so that gave us some buffer.

But it was fireworks almost every night. Because it was vacation for them.

Uncontrolled dogs that would wander onto our property and we couldn’t let our dogs out in our own yard. Luckily that would only happen a week here or there but you never knew who might show up.

Problem was owners were very good friends. At least they lived their full time and it was a separate cottage they rented.

When we shopped around for a new place we were VERY careful watching out for renters. Also need to watch out if there is a popular rafting spot right in front as well. You HAVE to shop for property at the peak of summer to know what you are getting into.

I like seeing activity on lakes more than most. When fellow owners say “they are gone” come September with a smile, I’m like, bummer they are gone. But there are always a few bad apples that do spoil the whole bunch.

The new spot I’m in, should be pretty good and stay pretty good. Adjacent home is worth $4 million easy. A neighbor down the road has a serious problem though and I feel bad for them. They just finished rebuilding too. But they have a really bad neighbor that rents to anything.

[TiltonBB]

If the neighbor is a friend maybe you could encourage them to only rent with a lease that has a maximum occupancy limit, "No Fireworks" and a "No pets" policy.

Insert a clause in the lease that says any violation of the lease terms will result in a forfeiture of the entire security deposit plus additional damages, to be determined solely by the owner. That should encourage better behaviour.

Even though I advertise "No Pets" I get rental inquiries every year from people who have dogs that "Never bark" along with assorted other claims about their perfect pets. The response is: Sorry, as the ad says, no pets, this is not the right house for you to rent.

[mswlogo]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

If the neighbor is a friend maybe you could encourage them to only rent with a lease that has a maximum occupancy limit, "No Fireworks" and a "No pets" policy.

Insert a clause in the lease that says any violation of the lease terms will result in a forfeiture of the entire security deposit plus additional damages, to be determined solely by the owner. That should encourage better behaviour.

Even though I advertise "No Pets" I get rental inquiries every year from people who have dogs that "Never bark" along with assorted other claims about their perfect pets. The response is: Sorry, as the ad says, no pets, this is not the right house for you to rent.

And lose a friend, no way. They were there long before us, renting it for many years. Who am I to come in tell them what they can and can’t do. We moved to a better spot, not to far away. We didn’t move because of the renters.

[Woodsy]

Today's article from the Daily Sun

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...4fde576dc.html

Woodsy

[TiltonBB]

This is the definition of a short term rental that Gilford has in the draft of the new regulations:

22.2.1 Short Term Rental – The rental of a dwelling unit for periods of up to thirty (30) consecutive days to transient occupants, lodgers, or guests, rented or offered for rent for fifteen (15) or more days in a calendar year, and where the dwelling unit does not otherwise constitute a hotel, motel bed-and-breakfast, cottage colony, boarding house, campgrounds, or other similar uses.

Violation notices will be sent similar to the notices sent for any code violation.

22.7.2 – Failure to correct a violation upon the issuance of two notices of violation and/or cease and desist orders within a twelve month period from date of first violation shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit.

[DUFF821]

I hope that they pass something regulating short-term rentals in all zones. These rentals devalue abutting property. After all, who would want to move next door to an Air BNB ? A lot of these rentals have absentee landlords as well making virtual vetting their only way of screening their potential tenants. It's very unsettling being next door to transient housing. As for landlords that actually reside on the grounds of these rental properties, all the power to you. Rent away.....

[Cal-to-NH]

Isn't Conway the best example of this kind of ban? If so, Conway is still living with the paradoxes and pitfalls of this kind of law....

BTW I am also sympathetic to folks who try to defer some of their taxation by renting their properties. I have always taken the opinion that folks work so hard for a living that the loud card games until two in the morning, imbibing, etc... are inevitable. I try not to judge as their time is limited, they have the right to some fun, and I am lucky to live here permanently. My wife and I used to rent a house on Cape Cod for 20 years back in the 80s and 90s. The year-rounder guy next-door extended us a lot of "grace" for our "night-time antics".

Below is the Conway article that has been in place for a while - https://conwaynh.org/wp-content/uplo...ted-by-BOS.pdf

It still isn't settled, and I have a friend who lives there that says it is still a divided town. Court battles have ensued and it's still not all decided yet - see: https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-06...t-term-rentals

People tend to have strong feelings on this issue and polarization is high. Many of the businesses there have said they can't separate the COVID pandemic from the restriction on visitors by the town, but they all seem to agree that it didn't help. I don't think the secondary implications here were really considered by the Conway Selectmen, and I would urge the Gilford Selectmen to do so. I wonder if the Conway Selectmen have ever wondered "This was a good idea - why?"

I hope the same polarization doesn't happen on the Lake. And I for one wonder if there are other ways to make sure we can get to a WIN-WIN for both visitors and residents. But I know I'm not smart enough to come up with something!

[John Mercier]

They had it in the past.
Visitors would go to businesses that were specifically regulated and formatted for that purpose.

When a resident rents a room (sort of like a B&B), unless they are operating as a B&B under the old regulations, they would generally rent for months or years; thus not even invoking the M&R tax.

With everyone trying to us an AirBnb approach for a second home, and then claiming they doing so to offset taxes, they are eating up the existing supply of housing.
Since it is so expensive and a slow process to increase the supply of housing, the government must defer demand, at least until we can catch up on supply. Without that, there has to be labor wage inflation in the double digits.

They allowed themselves to get trapped with material inflation... and pretty soon mortgage rate increases that they may never get out from under this situation without very brutal regulation.

[Cal-to-NH]

Going to be interesting to see where this goes.

I hope some of the tax revenue in Gilford has made it to the Town Attorney's office. There will be a lot of money spent on outside lawyers when the same lawsuits hit Gilford that are now hitting Conway. It will be interesting to see in the end exactly how much Conway ends up spending to defend these suits, and whether in the end they think it was worth it - even if they win....

[John Mercier]

If they win, they will counter sue for costs associated with the action.
They may have already filed it at the open, as we have seen when other local municipalities get sued.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Cal-to-NH

Going to be interesting to see where this goes.

I hope some of the tax revenue in Gilford has made it to the Town Attorney's office. There will be a lot of money spent on outside lawyers when the same lawsuits hit Gilford that are now hitting Conway. It will be interesting to see in the end exactly how much Conway ends up spending to defend these suits, and whether in the end they think it was worth it - even if they win....

On an issue that affects fundamental quality of life for a significant number of people, as the paper describes this, I think the town has to step up to the plate and do what they think is right, regardless of pushback from litigators. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a town government.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It still is not clear to me the definition of "Short Term Rental" -- ???

1-3 days?
1 Week ?
<30 Days ?


For example, our condo association restricts/ prohibits "Rentals" of less than 30 days.

.

If you "Lease" for 6 months+, no room and meals tax. Anything less, yoi're supposed to put your license # in the "for rent" ad and pay the tax. To me, that means anything less than 6 months is short term. It looks like the bill prevents cities/towns/Country (sic) from zoning out short term rentals, but your HOA can still do whatever the members approve.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It still is not clear to me the definition of "Short Term Rental" -- ???
1-3 days?
1 Week ?
<30 Days ?
For example, our condo association restricts/ prohibits "Rentals" of less than 30 days.
.

From NH RSA 48-A:1

Vacation rental" or "short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days. For purposes of this chapter, vacation rental and short-term rental are residential uses of the property and do not include a unit that is used for any nonresidential use, including retail, restaurant, banquet space, event center, or another similar use.

A one month or 30 day limit is not required. If a municipality desires to regulate housing through their zoning ordinance it may define the term however it chooses.

I understand that whatever comes out of the current discusions in Gilford will need to go before a Town Meeting to be voted upon.