Laserfiche WebLink
I support reasonable and simple regulation of the legal short and mid-term rental industry. <br /> To achieve more mutually beneficial and balanced legislation that doesn't harm existing <br /> operators, I suggest the following amendments. <br /> Recommendation#1: Maintain the 30-day timeframe in the definition of a short-term rental. <br /> Recommendation#2: Eliminate the definitions of and distinctions between "owner-hosted" and <br /> "operator-hosted"; regulate all rentals that are "hosted" in the same manner. <br /> If one of the purposes of this Bill is to attempt to keep long-term rentals in the rental <br /> market, then it should not matter whether individual residing on the property is an owner. <br /> If it is someone's "Principal home,"that person is a long-term resident—whether they are <br /> an owner or a tenant. Housing is key, not ownership. <br /> To discriminate against long-term renters by not allowing them to be employed as a rental <br /> operator, only encourages off-island owners to sell, rather than facilitate at least one long- <br /> term rental on the market. <br /> Recommendation#3: Eliminate the requirement of a notarized affidavit of full compliance of <br /> all health, safety, and code requirements.A declaration that all information submitted is true and <br /> correct to the best of the applicant's knowledge should suffice. <br /> There is no logical reason for anything more than a declaration of accuracy. The county <br /> do not apply the same standards to long-term rentals for our own residents. Why should <br /> they be more concerned about tourists. Further trying to prove what someone knows or <br /> doesn't know is just an exercise in futility. The only purpose this requirement serves is to <br /> scare and discourage owners from applying. <br /> Recommendation#4: Eliminate all rules that conflict or already exist in law or that are nearly <br /> impossible to enforce. <br /> Section 25-4-16.25 is a restatement of existing tax law. <br /> Section 25-4-16.17(2)(E) and(F) is a restatement of existing law. <br /> Section 25-4-16.17(G)is more restrictive than existing law. <br /> Section 25-4-16.17(H) is unenforceable and attempts to restrict the public from parking <br /> in public spaces. <br /> Why would you attempt to tell folks they can only have so many guests? How would you tell if it <br /> was the owner/operator's guests, or the renter's guests? <br /> Recommendation#5: Eliminate anything other than what amounts to a true registration. Name, <br /> address of unit(s), and contact information. <br /> Why do you need to know where all the bedrooms in a home are/a to-scale site plan? Why, <br /> knowing that so many folks have unpermitted modifications, would you require them to swear <br /> they are compliant? Why not just a declaration they believe is safe? <br /> 4 <br />