Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My parents live in a 55+ with an HOA and their is a % of rentals allowed, I'm not sure what that is, but I do know there is a 2 year occupancy rule before renting. Last I heard the rentals had crept up over the allowable % and the most recent boards aren't very good at keeping on top of things or enforcing the rules because nobody want's to be the bad guy. It's so different from when my parents and their contemporaries were on the board 20-30 years ago and everyone was on top of everything and very few issues ever came up. It's like a new breed of retirees just don't care about rules and the 90+ yr olds are too old to do anything about it.
One year minimum lease; owner must submit criminal background report to HOA on every adult resident over the age of 18; no felonies within pat 7 years allowed; max 2 persons per bedroom (not per room so living areas don’t count toward limit). All occupants must be listed on the lease; HOA gets copy of lease and criminal background reports. No overnight visitors for longer than 2 weeks who are not on the lease.
I have quite a bit of experience as an owner and private Landlord in condo communities.All the above because its unfair to owners to share common areas such as gym and pool with those who have no financial stake in the community and have a recent history of criminal activity. The 12-month lease to contribute to stability within the community. The limit per bedroom to prevent over population in the community with shared spaces such as parking lot, pool, gym, etc.
Location: Danbury CT covering all of Fairfield County
2,636 posts, read 7,434,951 times
Reputation: 1378
1 year lease required in most complexes. Some complexes are mandating owner must live there for 2 years before renting. Others have a cap on how many can be rented & with a policy in place with waiting lists. One HOA even runs the credit & background as a cost to the tenant applying. Another has a separate fee payable to the assoication every month for the privilege for renting.
Yes, but in a condominium, it's not 100% your property. If there are 400 units in the highrise, you may own approximately 1/4 of 1% of the property. So if 99.75% of the property owners don't want to live in an ersatz hotel, but you have no problem with it, do you really think that not allowing paying guests is an assault on your miniscule percentage of property rights?
Yes, it's still an assault on property rights. But I also understand that the majority rules in these kind of cases. That, however, doesn't make me support such restrictions any less.
Note, your same argument could be used for a single family homes, etc., in a city. If the people by or through their elected representatives (or referendum where appropriate) vote overwhelmingly to restrict short term rentals (as has been the case in Honolulu, where short term rentals are illegal outside of a few specified areas--so it wouldn't matter what a condo wanted or didn't want), and I found myself on the losing end of that vote, my interests represent a tiny fraction of the ownership interests of property owners in the city. But the affront to property rights is still the same. That I have a stand alone house vs. a condo makes no difference.
We don't have the percentage rules outlined here, but our HOA started out with no rental restrictions, then gradually went to 2 weeks; then to one week minimum, to accommodate one owner's family. We'll see how it works out. We're in a tourist area on the beach, but so far miscreants have been rare.
It's usually the infrequent time there's a local renting (not often in a gringo complex) and brings several family members/kids to our retirement condos.
If it is a tourist town, then a 10% cap with only long-term rentals allowed subject to HOA approval of lease and rental application. No AirBnB/VRBO or otherwise short-term rentals allowed. The reason many towns now have restrictions or outight bans on AirBnB type rentals is because of a signficant increase in trash/littering, parking problems, noise issues, property damage and vandalism.
Landlords not doing due diligence on who they rent to or not maintaining their property can be a big problem. There are plenty of places to buy investment properties so an HOA and the homewoners not wanting to deal with rental issues is reasonable.
Last edited by OtterTrees; 07-19-2021 at 05:54 AM..
We are owner occupied and no rentals. The person on the deed must live there. The no rental part keeps them from renting out a room to some one else. The person on the deed must live there keeps out the "it's not a renter it's my mom." people. The last one that tried that had to put mom on the deed and pay our legal fees.
We get a premium for our units and they always sell in a day or two. The buyers always say they bought because of our owner occupied/no rental policy.
Our attorney advised us to add "no fractional ownership". That will be done shortly.
Yes, it's still an assault on property rights. But I also understand that the majority rules in these kind of cases. That, however, doesn't make me support such restrictions any less.
Note, your same argument could be used for a single family homes, etc., in a city. If the people by or through their elected representatives (or referendum where appropriate) vote overwhelmingly to restrict short term rentals (as has been the case in Honolulu, where short term rentals are illegal outside of a few specified areas--so it wouldn't matter what a condo wanted or didn't want), and I found myself on the losing end of that vote, my interests represent a tiny fraction of the ownership interests of property owners in the city. But the affront to property rights is still the same. That I have a stand alone house vs. a condo makes no difference.
I believe the Honolulu restrictions were passed because housing that used to be available to residents had been converted to short term rentals, increasing rents and adding to their horrible homeless problem (entire city parks have become homeless encampments; there's no place for them to go). There's got to be a balance somewhere between personal property rights and the good of the community.
Expanded zoning might be an answer, so buyers know if they can rent their property long or short term.
I believe the Honolulu restrictions were passed because housing that used to be available to residents had been converted to short term rentals, increasing rents and adding to their horrible homeless problem (entire city parks have become homeless encampments; there's no place for them to go). There's got to be a balance somewhere between personal property rights and the good of the community.
Expanded zoning might be an answer, so buyers know if they can rent their property long or short term.
That's the main reason the political class gave, though if you looked at who lobbied the most for that bill, you'd see the hotel lobby's handprints all over it. They were upset with competition. That said, to the extent that the short term rentals increased rent and made housing more unaffordable for locals (and, to be clear, you did have genuine concerns and complaints from locals), you still hear a lot of people complaining about the unaffordability of housing on Oahu as the cost of single family homes and condos continues to significantly increase. Put differently, an increase in supply did not bring down rents in a meaningful way where the Average Joe and Jane on Oahu could afford things.
The political class truly believed that more supply would mean that the prices would drop so that locals could afford things, but failed to realize that single family homes and condos alike could still be rented and/or sold to higher income transplants, etc. Note, the pandemic environment and increased permanent teleworking is only exacerbating this matter.
One thing that the ban did do, however, was directly harm the many local staff who cleaned and cared for short term vacation rentals in between stays, etc.
Interestingly enough, there was an expanded zoning bill that passed the state legislature a few years ago that would have increased the number of legal short term vacation rentals from around 800 to over 10,000 on the island. Hawaii's governor vetoed the bill, though, so we are where we are.
During the housing slump ten years ago, a number of homes and townhomes in our community sold to investors. Current owners turned into landlords, and our community was inundated with tenants who hauled beer bottles to the pool, ran a daycare at our playground and pool, left mattresses in the front yard for their kids to jump on, left toys all over common property, "homesteaded" all the visitors parking spaces, and in general disregarded most of the HOA standards and rules.
Apartment managers are able to respond faster to such matters than HOAs which have to write up a violation notice, send to the owner, who then tells the tenant, who may or may not respond.
Board looked into rental restrictions and found that North Carolina law did not favor restricting owners from doing what they wanted with their own property, so that would be a tough way to go.
The only realistic solution was to increase the value of the properties so they were no longer attractive to investors.
That is indeed what is happening now. Investors are selling their properties at double what they paid for them ten years ago. These prices are not attracting investors but rather owner occupant buyers.
Individual landlords are done with paying mortgages on homes and townhomes where tenants don't pay their rent. The NC eviction moratorium is over, and the federal moratorium winds up the end of this month. There are some programs to help tenants get caught up on some of the back rent, but from what I've seen, it's too little, too late. In any case, it depends on the tenants filing paperwork and many landlords by now are just done with fussing with tenants.
People looking for rental properties are saying they have a lot of competition, the prices have gone up, and there is not much available.
Which is a a long way to say an HOA's best bet may be to work on increasing the value of the properties in the community to discourage investors and encourage owner-occupants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
