MouthBQ98 said:

---

If the home is in an area known as a vacation destination and the value has been driven up due to that and local incomes depend on vacation travel, I think that it is foolish to be overly restrictive on these vacation rentals. This is s sort of known and understood phenomena for anyone who chooses to live in a vacation destination. A lake, a ski area, near a popular wilderness park, on a beach. I can understand if the community bans it but that should come with grandfathered clauses for those locations that already have that arrangement for better or worse.

---

It's an opportunity for hotels to fill the demand for short term stays. I understand permanent residents not wanting to feel like they're living on a resort property with the turnover and behavior of temporary vacationers.

Very true. Seems like an opportunity for zoning. Some areas allow for it, others aren't, so either option can be found and everyone going forward knows where that is.

Ag with kids said:

---

Teslag said:

---

I found out about STR bans precisely because I was looking for a home in NPI with a boat slip and couldn't find jack *****

---

If you need something, PM me. I know a guy. (Seriously, I know a guy)

---

Another TexAg hookup!

woodyhayes said:

---

Try living in an unincorporated beach town. Went from a neat little beach town to beach house str's. and trailers. No joy in living here anymore after working all our lives to afford our "retirement" home at the beach. And it's people from Calif., Austin, Colorado, etc. that are buying everything up for rent houses.

---

It is enough to make you want to punch someone.

Given boomers' tendency to socialize their losses, i would not laugh at this.

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

Everyone loves the free market until they have to deal with it.

Logos Stick said:

---

Doesn't make any sense.

If it's a vacay home, it's only used for vacay. I guess I could see keeping renters out if you are wealthy enough to do it. But at that price, you're not renting to rif raf and you don't occupy the house most of the time. But ok, they kept out renters.

Second, how does keeping Airbnb out of there have anything to do with market going down? Makes zero sense. If it does affect it because new buyers will not buy them as vacay homes because they can't be rented by the new owners, then there is an easy fix: allow renters.

---

Maybe they are avoiding short term renters who come in, trash the place, don't pay, and require an extensive eviction process to get them out. Someone who knows how to play that game can stay quite a while before they have to leave.

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

Be careful using that word "stealing" . Stealing involve illegal change of possession from one entity to another. In this case what does the government do with the $0.75MM they stole? Nothing because they didn't "steal" anything. They may have caused damage by lowering the value, but it isn't "stealing"

Burdizzo said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

Be careful using that word "stealing" . Stealing involve illegal change of possession from one entity to another. In this case what does the government do with the $0.75MM they stole? Nothing because they didn't "steal" anything. They may have caused damage by lowering the value, but it isn't "stealing"

---

So they can pass laws to materially reduce the value of your home with no consequences? What they do with that is they are saying that reduced value makes the community worth more so while it isn't cash itself, they are taking from one group to benefit another and in the case of Breck, the mayor and many council exempted their property from the new regulation.

This is a partial eminent domain issue IMO but in this case they aren't offering any compensation.

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

Burdizzo said:

---

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

---

How is that twisting the law other than the law allows the government to take without compensation. If anyone else took $750k of value from you, would you call that stealing? The government takes from one group and hands it to another.

Put differently, if they just took your entire house and gave you nothing, is that ok? If not, why can they take 20-30% of it and give you nothing.

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

That's infuriating.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

That's infuriating.

---

That is grounds for getting your house vandalized.

Logos Stick said:

---

h1ag said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

This is inevitable

Boomers own roughly 60% of the vacation properties. The average Boomer is 66 years old with the oldest being around 75.

70 is the average age where people start experiencing age related health issues that make long distance traveling by car or air plane either difficult or impossible and, unsurprisingly, the age where most people decide to either sell their vacation property to fund their retirement or pass it on to their kids.

The problem of course is that with so many properties coming into the market at the same time (as will also happen when boomers try to sell their current houses a few years later when they reach 75-80 for a retirement community, assisted living or living with relatives) the values will plummet from what they expected to sell due to the combination of too much inventory and not enough Millenials/Gen Z in a position to purchase even at the lower costs.

---

FWIW, you lose credibility right away when you say the average age of boomers is mid 60s. Boomers are so called because of the baby boom following WW2. Using 1945 as a rough starting point, boomers are on average closer to 80 than any age in their 60s.

---

The last year for boomers was 64, which means 59 years old. It's a 20 year span, so 79 top age.

Assuming a normal distribution, that's a 69 average.

You are wrong!

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Very true. Seems like an opportunity for zoning. Some areas allow for it, others aren't, so either option can be found and everyone going forward knows where that is.

---

This is how we have it on NPI.

It's the (mostly) correct blend in my opinion.

samurai_science said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

By taking away someone's right to rent the property and/or sell it to someone that would buy it for the same purpose is a partial taking of value for a property owner. I would think on Texags we would be against government taking without any compensation.

In Breckenridge, I have been told by a realtor there that they are seeing a 15-25% drop in resale value from the new restrictions. On a 3mm home, that is up to $.75mm of stealing by the city government. Oh and the mayor and many council people own short term rentals exempt from the new restrictions. Shocking!!!

---

Everyone loves the free market until they have to deal with it.

---

It's not the free market if the government has interfered with it...

Kansas Kid said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

---

How is that twisting the law other than the law allows the government to take without compensation. If anyone else took $750k of value from you, would you call that stealing? The government takes from one group and hands it to another.

Put differently, if they just took your entire house and gave you nothing, is that ok? If not, why can they take 20-30% of it and give you nothing.

---

But they didn't take your house?

What you're describing some might call a "black swan".

There is probably a huge rise in inventory because the short term rental owners are all selling. Once the short term rental homes are done being liquidated, the prices will stabilize after the liquidation dip.

Our condo is for sale on NPI and the first thing everyone asks is can they STR it (clearly states in the listing you can't). It's definitely making it harder to sell, but made it a hell of a lot nicer when we were staying there.

My wife and I own a few properties on the coast and there a plenty of places that do not allow short term rentals. In some respects there is almost a premium for homes and lots in areas without short term rentals. Most of the places we looked at in short term rental areas were overpriced per square foot IMO, but overall were far from home prices in places where zoning or HOA's do not allow short term rentals.

FIDO*98* said:

---

Our condo is for sale on NPI and the first thing everyone asks is can they STR it (clearly states in the listing you can't). It's definitely making it harder to sell, but made it a hell of a lot nicer when we were staying there.

---

Interesting...where's the condo that it can't be STRed?

Just in case I get in the market again, I want to make sure to avoid it. STRs make A LOT more money.

15409 Salt Cay Court. It's only a 7-unit complex and the HOA bylaws don't allow anything under 30 days. It's definitely a catch 22. We never wanted to be around weekenders but in the current market buyers are looking to offset costs. We bought after Harvey so no danger of losing $, but it's looking like we may have to sit on it longer than we hoped

FIDO*98* said:

---

15409 Salt Cay Court. It's only a 7-unit complex and the HOA bylaws don't allow anything under 30 days. It's definitely a catch 22. We never wanted to be around weekenders but in the current market buyers are looking to offset costs. We bought after Harvey so no danger of losing $, but it's looking like we may have to sit on it longer than we hoped

---

Interesting. Didn't realize that one was no STR. I know before we moved down here we stayed on Salt Cay several times in several different condos and all were STR. I guess it's just that one condo.

But, that area is definitely more geared towards them than where I live .

YouBet said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

My condo in Austin banned Air BnB as well as most fractional ownership agreements. I voted with the majority. I can't speak to Palm Springs, but I'm not worried about resale value being impacted. Living around strangers that just want to party 24/7 blows.

---

Yes, it wouldn't bother me if our HOA banned it. We have a couple of houses across the way from us that are rented out and you can count on the weekend girl trips to get loud and rowdy.

---

Seems to be potential

bmks270 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

---

How is that twisting the law other than the law allows the government to take without compensation. If anyone else took $750k of value from you, would you call that stealing? The government takes from one group and hands it to another.

Put differently, if they just took your entire house and gave you nothing, is that ok? If not, why can they take 20-30% of it and give you nothing.

---

But they didn't take your house?

What you're describing some might call a "black swan".

There is probably a huge rise in inventory because the short term rental owners are all selling. Once the short term rental homes are done being liquidated, the prices will stabilize after the liquidation dip.

---

Inventory for sale is down as people are hoping litigation that has been initiated results in a change in the rules. About 40% of the single family homes in Breck have been used as short term rentals. Many of them are rarely used by the owner as they are investment properties. If you think values won't go down when you take out 40% of the buyers, I have some swamp land to sell you in Florida.

So if they take 99% of the house, is that ok. Just don't take 100%. If that isn't your view, how much of the value can they take and everything is ok?

I have no issues if new developments start with the restrictions or if an entire HOA votes in the restrictions because people are willingly signing up for the limits on how they can use their private property.

This was a news story I heard about while vacationing in San Diego. They reported that San Diego had the highest average housing costs relative to average household income in the nation. The belief was that since STRs earn more income per period than long term rentals, there has become a shortage of affordable long term rent properties for local residents. The city was abolishing STRs in certain situations to lower rent costs for the San Diego work force/residents. Of course fewer STRs will drive up rates for properties that can still be rented on a short term basis. It'd suck to buy a property with expectations of STRs to make it economically viable only to have it taken away. But, almost all investments are somehow susceptible to some form of government risk…

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Boomers are classified as those born between 46 and 64

So the oldest boomers are in their late 70s. but the youngest are still in their late 50s with mid 60s being the obvious median age

You're thinking of the Silent Generation (Joe Bidens generation)

So it sounds like you're the one without credibility here

---

I agree that boomers have traditionally been classified in those age ranges, and indeed, birth rates started falling around 1963-4. However, you take the average 1960-ish born individual who graduated HS anytime after about 1979, and he or she has far more in common with Gen X than they do with a Boomer, and most are still in the workforce. Most of my friends fit in this category (i.e. born in the early '60s) than they do older or younger and I'm as Gen X as they get.

Its an easy mischaracterization.

Worst word in the English language………vacay.

I ****in love Texags. Show up to a drama fest on STR's and stayed for the math.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

---

How is that twisting the law other than the law allows the government to take without compensation. If anyone else took $750k of value from you, would you call that stealing? The government takes from one group and hands it to another.

Put differently, if they just took your entire house and gave you nothing, is that ok? If not, why can they take 20-30% of it and give you nothing.

---

You keep using words like theft, stealing and taking as if the government now has something tangible that they gained illegally. That is not what has happened. The value of your property is reduced, but the government doesn't suddenly have that value in their coffers. What has happened is that you have been damaged because your property is now worth less, but nothing tangible has been taken from you because the government suddenly can't say the value of your property goes back up.

I am on your side here, but you really should learn proper English and legal terms.

Distribution is not symmetric and is not normal. My group of siblings under your definition would be boomers but my parents were both born in the mid 30's ( too young to serve in WWII ) started their family at 24. We are IMO the oldest members of Gen X a large chunk of children born in the 60's had nothing to do with the post war child boom which make the distribution not a symmetric bell curve

Put another way almost every child born in 1948 was part of the boom
A large chunk of the children born in 62 are not

91 Aggie lawyer beat me to it blue star for him

45-70Ag said:

---

Worst word in the English language………vacay.

---

What about a...

staycay

Sq 17 said:

---

Distribution is not symmetric and is not normal. My group of siblings under your definition would be boomers but my parents were both born in the mid 30's ( too young to serve in WWII ) started their family at 24. We are IMO the oldest members of Gen X a large chunk of children born in the 60's had nothing to do with the post war child boom which make the distribution not a symmetric bell curve

Put another way almost every child born in 1948 was part of the boom
A large chunk of the children born in 62 are not

91 Aggie lawyer beat me to it blue star for him

---

If the distribution is not normal, you'd need to prove that. I don't think it's normal either, I suspect it's way more skewed towards the age of 59. That means the average age is lower than 69. Either way, the average is not 80. It's asinine to ever make that assertion assuming you know the age range.

Second, are you claiming that the range of years that define boomers is not defined? It is. You don't get to decide what years make up the boomers. The government recognizes a range. The range is those born between 46 and 64. Period. End of discussion.

Here's the distribution for conversation sake...

Burdizzo said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

You have a strange way of twisting the law.

---

How is that twisting the law other than the law allows the government to take without compensation. If anyone else took $750k of value from you, would you call that stealing? The government takes from one group and hands it to another.

Put differently, if they just took your entire house and gave you nothing, is that ok? If not, why can they take 20-30% of it and give you nothing.

---

You keep using words like theft, stealing and taking as if the government now has something tangible that they gained illegally. That is not what has happened. The value of your property is reduced, but the government doesn't suddenly have that value in their coffers. What has happened is that you have been damaged because your property is now worth less, but nothing tangible has been taken from you because the government suddenly can't say the value of your property goes back up.

I am on your side here, but you really should learn proper English and legal terms.

---

The value transfer is from the owner that lost value to the neighbors that think their quality of life is better. If you don't like calling it stealing then let's call it government redistribution of wealth. Also the wealth is transferred to people like the Mayor and council members that exempted their own short term rental properties from the new restrictions because their properties will be worth more between higher rental rates due to less competition and higher resale prices due to the higher rents.

While I agree it isn't legally defined as stealing,, only the government can forcibly take from us and it not be defined as stealing. If I took $500k from you, we would all call that stealing, theft or embezzlement.