This morning I received an email from the Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® alerting me that “Washoe County is proposing an ordinance to consolidate nuisance codes, and is seeking to add a section that defines vacation home and rental land uses as nuisances.” See Washoe County Nuisance Ordinance Draft
According to the email the RSAR’s position is: “The Reno/Sparks Association of REALTORS® opposes Section 8 of the proposed ordinance because its intent, clearly stated in the proposed language, is to define vacation home and rental uses as a nuisance. The ability to rent one’s home is part of the bundle of property rights granted to property owners and should not be infringed upon.”
What are your thoughts?
Drive by poster
I would say that the RSAR should have asked its attorneys what the effect of the proposed ordinance is on vacation homes before sending out an email to its members.
Based on my 10 second reading of the proposed language, the language doesn’t define vacation rentals as a nuisance. The text basically provides that the large amount of vacation rentals in the area sometimes have activities that are nuisances (I’d guess because the landowners aren’t there and the tenants aren’t there long enough to give a crap about the lawn, garbage, etc.) and then sets up what those nuisances are – NOT that vacation rentals are nuisances. It doesn’t even say that nuisances will be enforced differently at vacation rentals versus other types of properties.
Honestly, I’d be embarassed if I was the RSAR to send out such a blatantly incorrect email and to take such a blatantly erroenous position.
Drive by poster
Having read it slightly closer (I was trying to figure out why vacation/rentals were even mentioned at all), the only reason that they are mentioned is that the abundance of vacation/rentals in Reno/Sparks/Tahoe means slightly different rules than the rest of the county. All property in Reno/Sparks/Tahoe is going to be treated the same, though – vacation/rental or owner occupied doesn’t matter.
John Newell
I concur with Drive by poster. The proposed language does not manifest an intent, clearly stated or otherwise, “to define vacation home and rental uses as a nuisance.” I too wonder why the RSAR would send an e-mail that is clearly a knee-jerk reaction by someone who does not understand the meaning of the proposed language.
Sylvia
Though the language interpretation may well be incorrect, there are communities that do regard vacation rentals as a nuisance. On Sanibel Island, private homes are limited to 28 day or more rentals so that residents are not bothered by more turnovers of rental guests.
What the community neglects to take into consideration when they ban or restrict vacation rentals is that the rentals do bring more money into the revenue stream.
But vacation rental owners are best advised to screen their guests in order to attempt to rent to only rental guests who they feel will be respectful of both their home and their neighbors.
One way I have been finding helpful in doing this is with the Facebook application, Second Porch. This app allows vacation rental owners to get a good view of who the guest is as well as the other way around.
Gail
I believe they have such an ordinance, limiting vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods, on Kuai. The enforcement is spotty however.
John Newell
Sylvia,
I was intrigued by your comment, even though it pertains to Florida, so I did a quick check of the City of Sanibel code. I have to say that it appears to me that the City of Sanibel Land Development Code is more draconian than even the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) regulations, which is saying something. Under the City of Sanibel’s Land Development Code, a zoning/usage violation, such as a rental for fewer than four weeks, would be a public nuisance.
Fortunately for the people of Washoe County, the proposed changes to the Washoe County Ordinance do not contemplate making vacation rentals a code violation of any type, much less one worthy of designation as a public nuisance. Indeed, the only mention of vacation/rental use is in the Statement of Intent found in a proposed new section, Section 50.310, in the context limiting the areas to which the changes in the nuisance ordinance shall apply. The part of the text that references vacation homes/rentals reads, “The public nuisances at issue focus generally on the CONSEQUENCES of intense vacation home and rental land uses as well as abuses produced at times by the entertainment and recreation industries.” [emphasis added]. This is in the context of specifying why the Lake Tahoe Basin should be designated the same as congested areas and separate from the rural areas of Washoe County (as Drive by poster points out above). The actual focus of the proposed changes is found in the last sentence of the Statement of Intent, which reads, “The public nuisances at issue focus on junk vehicles, land grading and animal control, as more further defined below.”
Sylvia
John, it is a draconian law, but one I must live with and by or lose my ability to rent my vacation rental home on Sanibel Island. The enforcement is not spotty as residents are quick to recognize and report a home not in compliance.
I am not certain if the law regulates our condo on Sanibel or if it is a condominium association restriction, but I can only rent the condo for a 7 night minimum.
The 28 night minimum, however, is a real bear for off season. I manage to rent the home, Toucan House, for 4 or 5 months off season as well as the 3 months of winter, but it is only through the greatest efforts.
The 28 night minimum was definitely driven by full time residents on Sanibel protesting weekly vacation rentals in the residential neighborhoods.
So my advice for all vacation rental home owners is to take the greatest care with their rental guests as my guess is that any town at any time can adopt a law that will significantly, or completely, thwart their vacation rental business.
Sanibel allowed those homes doing weekly rentals at the time of adopting the law to continue to do so, but once the home is sold, the new owners are bound by the monthly rental mandate.
Sanibel Island, as I am sure you know, is a unique location, a tropical, natural destination with 3/4 of the Island a nature preserve and there are restrictions aplenty. I agree with many of them for the good of the ecology, but the 28 night minimum on private houses really has nothing to do with the environmental protection aspect. It is human driven.
CommercialLender
I have a close friend whose HOA tacked on liens to his title in the amount of $100/day once they found he rented his home out for more than 1 year. (He moved to CA on temporary job basis and just moved back, but for the liens…) His HOA rules in this ‘hood (Seattle area) called for no more than 1 yr worth of renters. While no vacation area, it still goes to the heart of quiet enjoyment and potentially improperly restricting ownership rights, especially in his case of temporary job relo. He just filed the suit for around $15,000 worth of liens. Methinks he signed an HOA agreement as condition to his purchase, therefor should have known/complied, no matter how silly such a regulation is. Then again, is $100/day penalty reasonable? All the while, had he sold the home in an ill-timed sale in a poor economy, or otherwise not rented it out while on job transfer, the HOA rule would have imposed on him very large economic and potentially judicially-reasoned unreasonable penalties.
I’ll keep you posted.
MikeZ
RE: “I have a close friend whose HOA tacked on liens to his title in the amount of $100/day once they found he rented his home out for more than 1 year.”
IMO, anyone who drops a few hundred thousand dollars to live according to the arbitrary whims of a half-dozen of the craziest control freaks they’ve ever met (the typical HOA) deserves every lien they get.
No sympathy here!
You can fine me $50 for not being home before 6PM to take in my trash cans?! I don’t think I’ll be buying *here*, but thanks anyway.
For all the freedom we have out here (which I truly appreciate, believe me), the HOAs in Reno tend to be like little, dictatorial fiefdoms, staffed by arrogant busybodies who have nothing better to do all day long except issue citations for the most trivial of things.
Ok, sorry for the tangent, rant over.
FutureRenoHomebuyer
HOAs are crazy, and I would do my level best to avoid an area where I could be “ruled” by one. I don’t understand why so many people tolerate or actually seek out HOAs under some misguided pretense of maintaining home values.
Roll those HOA fees into a mortgage in an area without an HOA, and you have that much more house. Giving up freedom to an HOA so your neighbor can’t park his car on the curb is just crazy. OBTW, whatever happened to chatting with one’s neighbor or having him/her over for a BBQ and discussing such matters?
I guess it’s just easier to pay some octogenarian dictator $200/month to do your dirtywork…
All that said, I sympathize with CL’s friend, and hope he’s successful at voiding some of the unreasonable fees levied upon him. Is this case representative of how HOA’s are making ends meet in this economy?