Posted on 07/19/2015 7:26:50 AM PDT by george76
Millions flock to the Southern California coast each year, often renting a cottage or condo for a respite by the sea.
But the explosive growth of online travel booking sites in recent years has prompted several coastal cities to consider tightening regulations on those who rent out their homes for short stays.
While proponents of the short-term rental industry say the additional income often is vital to property owners’ livelihoods and the local economy, city leaders and neighbors want greater oversight to protect residential neighborhoods, tax revenue and the availability of housing amid a booming industry.
Santa Monica, Laguna Beach, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach and West Hollywood are among the latest Southern California cities taking up the regulation of short-term rentals.
San Francisco has agreed to allow rentals under 30 days, but just created an office to enforce the city’s new policy. And New York is cracking down on illegal rentals.
...
There is a fiscal incentive for cities to more closely monitor rental activity. Santa Monica’s law requires the collection of a 14 percent hotel tax.
The rapid growth of home-sharing requires legislation that “restores fairness” to local governments owed taxes, said state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The will HAVE their cut of the booty.
The property that you own?
You don’t own it.
Isn’t it funny that they say they want to protect neighborhoods, while at the same time Obama is concocting a racial database to use as a resource for disparate impact suits and neighborhood forced integration?
Just say your home is a sanctuary residency for families of illegals visiting.
I don't think state Sen. Mike McGuire would much enjoy my concept of, "restoring fairness to local governments."
They want the Lodging Tax for it.
And if you charge a Lodging Tax, you’ll have to meet all of the Hotelier requirements and permitting.
Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money, Mo’ Money!
Let them get a dose of their own medicine.
McCain rammed thru something similar in Sedona, AZ.
Designed to protect hotel franchises and his personal real estate holdings.
This is about fairness to government which apparently has rights. It is unfair if the government doesn't get a share in any and every human transaction.
Of course once they tax something they regulate it. Hotel tax is the nose of the camel, then comes health inspections, documentation on laundry, clean air standards thermostat controls, 1099 and I9 documents for every service imaginable, obscure fillings that only an attorney can create, proof that rentals are made to protected classes like sodomites, illegals and ex-cons, snap inspections and searches, oh and paper work out the ying yang. They came in the name fairness and rights and left with your rights and total control of your home.
It is almost as if some hotel and resort interests are using big brother to beat up their competition, but that doesn't sound as good as fairness and rights of the Fabian state.
And therein lies the problem with a lot of things in this country. It's an indirect way of saying that those people who are external to the ownership of the asset want to be able to control it. Sound familiar?
He tells me he is still pissed about that every time he sees me. He is not pissed that he lost 100 bucks it's the fact he will never own his property and there is absolutely nothing he can do about it. He claims he has never voted Democrat since...
If you own a home and occupy it yourself, I can tell you that there are few things short of a locust plague or an ebola outbreak that will diminish the value of your home faster than having transient residents living around you. This is why it's in your best interest to have your municipal government enforce zoning laws that restrict property uses in low-density residential neighborhoods, for example.
‘Well, these are friends that we recently met. We invited them to stay at our place, free of charge - just like relatives. They’re such nice people, and they gave us ‘gifts’, totally unrelated to the stay in our place of course.’
If housing availability were actually a problem then short term rentals would be impossible due to demand/occupation.
The kleptocrats and their media scribes don’t even try to lie convincingly these days.
I think this all boils down to class, location and haves vs. have nots, myself. The one thing you probably can count on is that any part of privileged California coast Dem Society is that gubmint gots to get their cut. Their goal (maybe public, maybe not) is to get revenue from this.
That is exactly right and that’s why many HOA rules prohibit short term rentals.
But is it the Gov’t right to say if you can rent out your property for a short term rental? This has nothing to do with protecting property values, but in protecting hotel owners and collecting taxes.
Homeowners who use their homes for short-term rentals should realize that other outside parties may have something to say about it, too. For example, your homeowners' insurance policy may clearly prohibit this type of arrangement. Your mortgage may also be at risk, if you have been extended a residential mortgage that has clear terms and conditions that govern the use of the property.
I have a very reluctant partner in a property with very high property taxes. I can afford the taxes, but what happens if I stop paying in full, and making inadequate and sporadic payments? Or stopping altogether? Is the property "sold" on the courthouse steps, and is there no "getting it back"? Does the "debit" collect interest for the Town?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.