Short Term Rentals

[tonigking]

Just about the time I began to feel really good about the positive progress Granite Shoals is making, The Council or most of it , pulls a bonehead stunt with considering a Short Term Rentals Odinance. This past 4th of July the traffic and noise was horrendous isn't that enough?

Are you kidding me? that's just what we need; more demand on our PD/EMS and Fire services, trash services, animal control etc, etc.Who are already streched beyond limits.

It will be great for property values having rowdy frat parties and the like going on every weekend and all summer.

It will be wonderful having all those strangers all over town, no control over who of course, no means to enforce an unenforceable Ordinance. (whose going to be the bed tax police?)

It will mean more burden on the Voting, Taxpaying Residents for sure. And absolutely valueless to the City.

You want short term rental ? Build a Motel 6 on the Highway at least the City would collect some revenue from that.

[Wolfe]

I don't understand. You are all for the city building itself up, building businesses and lots more homes. Do you not understand how many more loud people, misconduct, noise and turmoil that will bring? Do you not believe with all you agree with the city on with their development plans that there will be more traffic and other things that you mentioned that you don't like? This small, quaint town aint seen nothin yet and once the city does get up and going with their "plan" of development, it will never be the same place again. No more quiet nights, quiet neighbors, low traffic, and all that good stuff. It will be loud, traffic, more crime and all the great stuff bigger cities have. You know, the stuff so many moved out here to get away from? That's what you are calling positive progress.
You complain about a few weekends per summer that there are actually people here in this town, all of winter is totally dead around here.

[tonigking]

Wolfe, Growth is inevitable, no matter where you live.

:quote:I am in favor of planned, sensible and controlled growth that benefits all or most of the residents in the community and encourages permanent, respectful, law abiding families, singles, retirees to live here.
I am in favor of commercial development on the highway for my convienience and for broadening the tax base.
I am in favor of having a convienient post office, library, sports complex , medical clinic and grocery store, just to name a few.
I am never in favor of anything that serves a select few at the expense of the majority.:quote:

[Pure Texan]

Ms. King, when does this thing supposed to go into effect Is there anything that can be done to stop it
How does the Mayor feel about it

[Frank_Reilly]

Due to popular request, I've asked the city manager to put the matter of short term rentals back on the city council's agenda for 7:00 p.m. Tuesday evening (7/27/10).

Last week, a majority of the city council sent the issue to the planning & zoning commission to draft an ordinance for the council to consider that would have allowed short term residential rentals but which would have included a number of safeguards to help avoid the abuses of the minority of short term rental owners. Those safeguards would have included a required registration of each property with a registration fee to cover the city's costs of regulating the program, payment of hotel/motel taxes, holding owners responsible for renters' actions, revoking the right to lease after 3 citations (by renters or owners) related to the property in any 12 month period, limiting the number of short term rental days allowed per year per property, requiring owners to inform tenants of the city's noise and nuisance laws and establishing occupational limits for each residence.

After review of that draft ordinance from the planning & zoning commission (which most likely would have occurred in August), the council was to consider whether to adopt or modify that ordinance, or determine whether or not it would be best to leave the ordinance on the books and ask staff to enforce it as is. Due to the filing with the city secretary of a petition yesterday signed by scores of permanent residents, as well as the continued public outcry (here, in emails, phone calls and at other public meetings) against allowing any short term rentals under any circumstance, I thought it best to have the council reconsider the interim decision made last week in case public sentiment has been sufficiently strong to change the council's opinion. I see no reason for us to ask our city attorney and planning & zoning commission to work on an ordinance that stands little, if no, chance of passage.

I had been reserving my public opinion on this issue until I had a chance to review what the majority of the city council asked the planning & zoning commission to draft, so that I -- along with the city council -- could weigh the issues of whether the city could reasonably regulate short term rentals to prevent the problems that short term rentals can cause against the desires from some property owners to lease their properties for less than 30 days at a time to help them keep the properties they love in Granite Shoals. While I was keeping an open mind on the subject, I remained unpersuaded that the city could adopt a sufficiently protective ordinance that the city could both reasonably enforce and that would satisfy concerns about short term rentals. My largest concern was not whether the city could draft an ordinance with sufficient protections, but whether the city had the resources to enforce such an ordinance in a manner that would in itself be sufficiently protective. No matter how good our staff may be now or in the future, enforcement over weekends and holidays, would no doubt prove troublesome.

The city council heard the details of the very real problems experienced as a result of two property owners who have not controlled their short term tenants (there may be other bad actors, but neighbors who have had to suffer from the problems caused by two properties -- and those who supported those neighbors -- were the only ones that the council has heard from in opposition to any short term rentals). The council also heard from a number of responsible property owners who strictly screen possible short term tenants, and who hold those short term tenants responsible for acting poorly. The Council heard no opposition from neighbors of these responsible owners.

However, since the time of the meeting last week, it has become abundantly clear to me that an overwhelming number of our property owners do not believe that any city regulation -- no matter how strict -- could satisfy their concerns about the problems that short term rentals could cause. I cannot speak for the rest of the city council, but I intend to respect the strongly expressed desires of the vast majority of the property owners from whom I have heard, and will support a motion to rescind last week's request to the planning & zoning committee, and will support a different motion to ask city staff to enforce our current ordinance that bans rentals of residential properties within zone R-1 of the city (short term rentals are explicitly allowed in R-2 residential and commercial zones).

If a majority of the city council supports rescinding last week's action, all is not lost for responsible owners who desire some form of short term rentals: owners in R-1 areas who desire to operate a bed and breakfast (B & B), which requires the owner to be on-site with the short term tenants, are already allowed under the existing code to apply for a B & B permit. In order for that exception to continue to be viable, property owners must be responsible, and follow the lead of all but the two short term rental owners who brought this issue to where it is today.

If a majority continues to want to look at alternatives and recommendations for an ordinance to allow for regulated short term rentals, I'll be closely reviewing any draft ordinance to be sure that it contains the best safeguards possible, and I will be looking to our city staff to properly enforce the new ordinance.

[Wolfe]

Wolfe, Growth is inevitable, no matter where you live.

:quote:I am in favor of planned, sensible and controlled growth that benefits all or most of the residents in the community and encourages permanent, respectful, law abiding families, singles, retirees to live here.
I am in favor of commercial development on the highway for my convienience and for broadening the tax base.
I am in favor of having a convienient post office, library, sports complex , medical clinic and grocery store, just to name a few.
I am never in favor of anything that serves a select few at the expense of the majority.:quote:

Have you seen the future land use plan?
I respect your viewpoint on this but, have you not heard of the large residential development planned by the city, the lakeside development? Do you know where that is to be located? Do you know what road will probably be the main road to get to that development? Do you realize how much traffic will be coming right through the middle of the city and how much noise, nuisance and other problems will come right along with it?
The lakeside development that will also include 20% shopping, entertainment, dining/restaurants which may even sell alcohol for all we know. Then you not only have traffic through the middle of town, but more drunks driving through the middle of town. Or will you make sure the council doesn't allow alcohol to be sold in those dining establishments? So no one can enjoy a glass of fine wine with their dinner. (By the middle of town I mean Phillips Ranch Road from 1431 to the end of Phillips Ranch Rd. Phillips Ranch Rd. is one of two roads that will lead to the lakeside development.)
The lakeside development that will include 80% residential, medium and high density residential options which means large apartments and or condos. The people who live in those condos might dare to have company over, which will result in even more traffic. About 732 acres allotted for that lakeside development and you think it's going to still be peaceful down our neighborhood streets?
What about the "industrial park" the city plans. Do you want that in your backyard? It won't but are you fine with it even though it will be in someone elses backyard. Why is that ok with you?
The development map shows that only a tiny, and I mean tiny portion will be dedicated to parks. (shown in green, only a couple of green blurbs on the whole map)
You tell me how that is in any way sensible? You tell me how you think commercial is only going to be on the highway, again, I ask you to look at the city plan which has a lot of commercial use right down the road many of us live on.

[Wolfe]

Just to make sure this doesn't seem off topic, it is right on topic. I am trying to convey the issue of a few weekend rentals a few weekends a year vs. the 35,000 people the city estimates it can cram in to live here listed on their comprehensive plan.
So lets say about 30,000 more than we pretend to have living here at present.
So all you that are so gung ho about this city plan, you all going to not complain when this huge influx of people move out here with us?
Those weekend rentals are sounding better and better to me.

Only 2% for parks? Why?

[Frank_Reilly]

Wolfe, the development is not proposed by the city. It is proposed by private landowners who desire to have their land developed. The landowners have not filed any proposed plats yet -- they have only provided some conceptual plans. When and if they do file plats, they will have to comply with the city's subdivision ordinance and upcoming impact fee ordinance that will require the developers to adequately provide for transportation and utility needs -- including taking into account the needs of those of us who are already here.

[Wolfe]

Hello Mr. Mayor. I got the information about he plan directly off the City Of Granite Shoals web site. It clearly states who and what was involved in developing the plan. It appears the city endorses this plan since it's on the web site and was developed with city staff among others. The city clearly was involved in the development of this plan.

I quote "Future Land Use Plan Map
The Future Land Use Plan map, Plate 4-1, has been drafted as the result of numerous meetings with the public, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and City staff."

http://www.graniteshoals.org/plan/pdf/GS4FLUP.pdf

[tonigking]

Wolfe , You are clearly off topic !

Mr. Mayor,
Thank you for responding to my concerns about SHORT TERM RENTALS.
I should have known you have, as always, the best interest of the City at heart.
I sincerely hope all the Council members will be as thoughtful.

It is such a blessing to have a man of your caliber leading the way for our community and if ever extended term limits were a consideration...it would be to keep you in office.

Thanks again for all you do!:rockon:

[cleaner]

There are so many short term rentals in Granite Shoals already. I clean several on a regular basis. Everyone who visits completely respects the property. I have been doing this for years and have never once cleaned up after a frat party bunch. It's always nice middle class families here to enjoy a vacation. They always leave the property in good condition. There are even more in the Horseshoe Bay area and they are the same. These guests are shopping locally and eating out locally. I personally cannot see the problem. These homes are not like a motel...they are nice places where nice people can have a nice Hill Country vacation.

[harvey]

This issue has spiraled out of control and all sense of reason has evaporated. All the complaints against those who might trade nights they don't spend in their home for money from those who would like to spend time on the lake can be addressed by the current public decency ordinances.

The fear of "drunken frat parties" (or other unsavory behavior) is over-blown and not constrained to short-term renters. Public intoxication, indecency, noise, etc. are all covered by current ordinances. So, why are the citizens of Granite Shoals against those of us who vet our renters and would never allow such behavior?

It makes no sense, but emotional issues seldom do.

[tonigking]

Well, well. The last time I looked I still had the right to express my opinion. As do you. I don't know where it comes in that anyone has the right to attack my opinion or me.

I would like very much to hear your opinion of the issue in a civil debate that might even change my opinion.

Clearly, these hysterical rants won't do it.

You might start with telling me how much you have contributed to the City from your "years and years of cleaning" and all the "nice" families you have vetted and rented to. (property taxes don't count):)

[harvey]

The mayor wrote that this issue is due to "the two short term rental owners who brought this issue to where it is today." Therefore the vast majority of property owners who rent out their homes are conscientious tax paying members of our city.

Regardless of whether those who behave badly are renters, citizens, or visitors to our parks, there are sufficient ordinances available to ensure appropriate behavior.

Why do we need more ordinances and more constraints that define what we can do with our property?

[Pure Texan]

If you can't afford the property you own sell it to someone who can and live within your means like the rest of us.
Do you know where most all the trashed out places in GS came from? Weekenders who couldnt keep up and tried to rent out.
desperate people dont vet. they rent to anybody with a few bucks.

[Wolfe]

Toni, your rude words to another person on this forum on another post and I do quote "
If you don't like it , leave it!:( Take your own advice. As for opinions, you are not the only one allowed to have one as you seem to think. I see nothing at all of a rant by any of the other posters, they are simply expressing their opinion as you are.

You have a love fest with the mayor when things are going your way. But when something occurs that you don't like you really change pace fast.

Here's the thing. I did not move in to a retirement community where everyone should have lights out at 9 pm and be quiet and don't drive because Toni King says not to. This is a recreational community, like it or not. In fact, that is exactly what the city plan is based upon. They are going to make a lot of money by promoting the boating and recreation here, not any retirement community. There are going to be lots of people actually having a lot of fun out here. They will be driving the streets, playing music, drinking alcohol. This is going to be the case with renters, short or long term as well as regular everyday residents. I live here and if I want to have a lot of friends or family come over and have a great time, you will not be stopping me.

[Wolfe]

If you can't afford the property you own sell it to someone who can and live within your means like the rest of us.
Do you know where most all the trashed out places in GS came from? Weekenders who couldnt keep up and tried to rent out.
desperate people dont vet. they rent to anybody with a few bucks.

Are you saying that everyone who rents their place out is desperate? Hmmmm. So basically, every landlord in America is desperate?

[Jubilee]

I totally agree with Wolfe's last comments. If you want to live like an old person- move to a retirement community.

There are three-short term rental properties within viewing distance of my house - one is right next door to me (I live here full time). I have no complaints; the renters have always been respectful. The renters sign strict agreements about parking, noise, etc. before they rent the property. The houses and yards are kept in excellent condition -much better than before they started renting the property. To tell you the truth - after a long quiet winter, I enjoy seeing (and hearing) people having a good time.:).

Did someone remove the "hysterical rant" and "attack" on Tonigking's opinion? I don't see it?

[Webmaster]

I haven't been following this debate very closely. I just wanted to ask - what about enforcement of existing disorderly conduct, traffic, and parking laws? Is that not working? It seems to me that if you had a "loud frat party" and you put the renters in jail for Disorderly Conduct, it solves the problem. I used to work in a college town and I know that putting people in jail and towing illegally parked cars solves a lot of problems.

[JSKR]

I hesitate to comment on this debate because I know a couple of the debaters and don't want to offend either. :) But, where I live, almost every house is a waterfront except mine. Most of the time, those homes are empty, very few actually live here full time.

On those holiday weekends every waterfront house is occupied by the owners and their visitors. There are as many as 7 - 10 carloads of people staying with those homeowners in almost every single waterfront home. That means that as as many as a hundred people could be frequenting my little neighborhood alone staying in the 10 or so houses I mentioned. These are not short term renters. These are owners who happen to have weekend homes on the lake who enjoy sharing those beautiful homes with the company of others.

I think very few short term rentals are causing the issues that Toni mentioned. There is a lot of traffic caused by these very same homeowners that I mentioned. If my little neighborhood has this many visitors, and you multiply that by several other neighborhoods in GS with the same thing, yes that will be a lot of traffic. But it's homeowners who pay a huge amount (a good $20,000 per year) on taxes for their waterfront homes and they sure do have the right to have as many visitors as they want.

Personally, I enjoy those weekends. I don't go out on the lake then, buy I enjoy watching everyone have a great time, ride around on the carts, screaming on the lake having fun, taking walks, walking their dogs, music here and there. It's only once in a while, it's not every night, so I don't mind it at all.

[harvey]

As one who infrequently trades time that I don't spend in my waterfront home for cash or future favors from friends, family, and/or third parties I still don't understand the issues that those who are against renters/rentals are expressing.

JSKR is correct to point out that some home owners (regardless of whether they are full- or part-timers) invite a large number of folks to visit during weekends. I am "guilty" of such actions too.

Is this wrong? Am I not allowed to invite friends to enjoy the lake? They park on my property, act in respectful manner, treat the property and the lake with respect. I wouldn't tolerate anything less.

Same for the families that I rent to. I vet them because I don't want my property damaged. I vet them because I respect my neighbors and my neighborhood. I vet them because that's the right thing to do. And, before this issue arose, my neighbors did not even know that there were renters in my home.

As webmaster asked, what is the core issue? Let's discuss this in a respectful manner.

PS: We don't rent our property out because we can't afford to own it. We rent our property out because we want others to enjoy the lake when we can't.

[tonigking]

JSKR and Harvey, Thank you for your comments and opinions of this issue. It is what we need to have a rational debate.

As for others who insist on attacking the person and not debate the issue, I have no time for.
I will say this... To admire and respect Mayor Reilly is my perrogative. I don't always agree with him and some others like him, but I can always count on them to listen to my views and then try their best to do what they believe is the right thing for everyone. I can ask no more than that. If that's a "love fest" so be it.:rockon:

[tonigking]

PS: It just occurred to me that some of you may not be aware of the fact that there is already a City Ordinance dealing with this issue. It is , in large part, the proposed changes that I object to.

[Jubilee]

I think the use of "bone-head" is the only real attack in this string.

[harvey]

"there is already a City Ordinance dealing with this issue" and that's one of my pet peeves. We have so many city, county, state, and federal laws, who knows all of them??? I don't doubt that every one of us breaks at least one per day without realizing it.

Where are these ordinances documented? Does the city post the text online?

[lakelubber]

Mayor Reilly, or anyone else, can you tell me why the link to the City Zoning Map and Ordinance 409 appear to be broken? I can't find any way to view these documents.

[Wolfe]

Mayor Reilly, or anyone else, can you tell me why the link to the City Zoning Map and Ordinance 409 appear to be broken? I can't find any way to view these documents.

Hmm, I find that interesting too. All those links worked a couple days ago when I posted information about the comprehensive plan. Now nothing works? Seems really fishy to me, and not right to remove that information when someone pulls up stuff that isn't that flattering to the whole "plan".
Now it's looking like there is something to hide.
I have a saved copy of the comprehensive plan if you were looking for that lakelubber.

[Moonlyp]

Short-term rentals are not 'valueless to the City'. Please do your research. The City stands to gain the taxes vacation rental (VR) owners file QUARTERLY with Burnet County plus the $1000-$2000 our guests spend in the area. When I retire and can live in our home in GS full time, you will be subject to 40 of my family members here on most weekends making way more noise with more vehicles than our guests are allowed. Why do you want so much 'control' over who comes and goes? You will not have that power no matter which way this argument is settled. Perhaps we should be suspect of who comes and goes at your place.

Our city's growth will draw more folks to live here not less. That's what growth is about.

[dmozoid]

Hmm, I find that interesting too. All those links worked a couple days ago when I posted information about the comprehensive plan. Now nothing works? Seems really fishy to me, and not right to remove that information when someone pulls up stuff that isn't that flattering to the whole "plan".
Now it's looking like there is something to hide.
I have a saved copy of the comprehensive plan if you were looking for that lakelubber.

The only link I see not working is the zoning map...

[tonigking]

I have to admit I was remiss in not referring to the existing ordinance with regard to short term rentals. This is not just a waterfront issue. Expansion of this ordinance to all R1 and R2 properties will destroy property values all over the City.
Let me just say that since 1983, I have watched GS sink to horrible depths and just when we are really coming out of the swamp., some want to take us back.

It did become apparent that some Landlords did not know an ordinance already existed.

Those of you who have operated under the Ordinance in Zone R2 and paid your taxes on same, I appreciate.
Those of you who appropriately vet your rentors I also applaud.

My biggest complain is having unenforceable ordinances that can further burden our City Services and allow for undesirables to move into our community, unvetted, for a short period of time.(or long time for that matter)

As for the comings and goings at my house you are welcome to observe. I don't hide behind a pseudonym when I throw rocks. I'm a 71 y/o grandmother with an attitude.:laughing::laughing::rockon:

PS: It is no laughing matter that today there are 24 known sex-offenders in our zip code 12 in GS. Wonder who vetted them? They would'nt have to register if they are short term!

[gsowner]

Jubilee - thank you for pointing out both sides of this issue.

[Frank_Reilly]

The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/popularity-soaring-for-short-term-house-rentals-839755.html?viewAsSinglePage=true

Also, the city's zoning map is back up on the website http://www.graniteshoals.org/docs/zoning201007.jpg, and we've asked the webmaster to post the city's zoning ordinance. Both items have been off the site for quite a while, and long before the discussion over short term rentals arose. The zoning map was down, pending re-zoning of newly annexed areas, and the ordinance was removed due to possible confusion between four ordinances that implement the entire zoning ordinance. The city will be posting an unofficial combined version that incorporates the four ordinances. Respectfully, there was nothing "fishy" about the items not being on the website.

[Frank_Reilly]

By the way, any GS residents, property owners or other interested parties who aren't receiving my "Mayor's Update" e-newsletters, and would like to be added to the distribution list, please email me at mayor@graniteshoals.org.

[Pure Texan]

LOL looks like all thos folks violating the old city ordinance and doinf rentals anyway have shut up.
Sombody that was renting sayed they didnt even know about it.
hah have you ever tried tellin that to a cop. He would say ignorance of the law is no excuse.
so wher is this thing going now. We gonna have this short term stuff all over town or what?

[Wolfe]

LOL looks like all thos folks violating the old city ordinance and doinf rentals anyway have shut up.
Sombody that was renting sayed they didnt even know about it.
hah have you ever tried tellin that to a cop. He would say ignorance of the law is no excuse.
so wher is this thing going now. We gonna have this short term stuff all over town or what?

What the heck are you saying?!

[Wolfe]

[QUOTE=Frank_Reilly;7523]The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/popularity-soaring-for-short-term-house-rentals-839755.html?viewAsSinglePage=true

Mr. Mayor, no disrespect intended but frankly I don't care what Austin is dealing with or doing. This is not Austin and we don't wish to be like Austin. If we wanted that, we would live in Austin.
Hopefully that is not what this city is trying to do here. That is part of the problem. Too many people move out here from big cities, then try to make these small towns big cities. Just stay in the big cities if you want that so badly.

I guess all of this has 2 sides. Owners who pay for their property who feel they have rights to rent, and owners who pay for their property who feel they have a right to dictate what everyone else does.
I understand about ordinances. If they are there, enforce them. Period.
How far does all this really go? We are really trying to police every minute of every citizens existence before long.
When will we dictate what days you are allowed to cut your grass, what time your pets are allowed outside, what time you may or may not turn on porch lights because they ruin the view of the stars for your neighbors.
Everyone complains about our government getting too powerful, too much in our lives and our personal business yet we are allowing city governments to do exactly that. Why is city government being big brother different than federal government being big brother? It's not!

[butchkemper]

I think that the Mayor's comment about Austin dealing with the short term rental issue was to let us know that the issue is not just limited to GS and MF.

Butch

[lakelubber]

Last night the Granite Shoals City Council voted to ban vacation home short term (30 days or less) rentals. However, those persons who have rented out their property in the past under the tacit approval of the city in the past were essentially "grandfathered in" and may continue to rent for a period of time if they comply with registration and regulations to be formulated by city staff.

I think the proponents' support for the ban which limits the private property rights of all Granite Shoals homeowners in R-1 zoned areas is extremely short sighted. I would guess the average age of the resident owners who spoke in support of the ban was over 65. Because of their age, they probably don't currently pay the high lake front property taxes that non-resident owners pay. I wonder if they have considered that they will die someday. I expect that most have children or other heirs to whom they want to leave their property. As soon as they die, the property taxes will be increased to non-frozen levels. Their children will only have two options, 1) gut it up and pay the high taxes, or 2) sell Mom & Dad's home for whatever the market will bring at the time. The option of continuing ownership and use of the property with the help of the cash flow that short term rental brings is now gone forever.

There is another scenario that can play out. One or both of the elderly resident owners can develop health issues that require them to move into costly assisted living or nursing home facilities, or move closer to family. Again, they do not have the option of paying for the associated extra costs from the cash that can be generated by short term renting. They, or their family, may be forced to sell their home.

This is a heavy price for Granite Shoals property owners to pay for problems that have, to date, been minimal in number and minor in effect.

[tonigking]

To the City Council, I appreciate your wise decision.

Lakelubber, I also appreciate your impassioned concern for all of us old people who will be so negatively impacted by our kids not being able to rent out our homes.
Representation at council meetings by only us old people is usually due to the fact that the young folks are working, at football, soccer,baseball, dance practice or games etc.
It was not the old people who were out getting the petition signed. It was young working mothers and fathers who want to keep the area safe for their children.
This is not a party town, never has been (not intentionally anyway) There are many retirees , but have you taken a head count of the children in Granite Shoals?
It's a family town. When extended family visits, please be respectful of your neighbors. Enjoy yourselves, respect the speed limits, noise and pet ordinances and we'll all be happy.
Lets keep it that way and be ever vigilant for negative elements coming in that can adversely affect the children and us old people as well. We certainly are not free from crime.
It's us old people who will hold down the fort while the young are still out making a living, keeping a watchful eye on your property and certainly on your children.:D

[Pure Texan]

Thank you maam, Ms King. You are exactly right. My boys are playing pop warner and my wife is working. Aint no way Im leavin my boys to go to a meeting.
If any taxes are frozen its the school taxes and how many people 65 have kids in school. Yall paid your whole working life why should you have to pay now. If I had it my way seniors shouldn have to pay any taxes after 65 especialy school taxes.
Thank you council from me to.

[lakelubber]

Point well taken about the attendence at the council meetings, but that is not the point of my comments. The point is that a valuable private property right is being taken away from all of the property owners in Granite Shoals. Is there anyone who owns property that is not concerned with at least maintaining the value of their property?

Granted, only the school portion of the tax is frozen under the "over 65" exemption, but upon the death of the owner, the loss of that exemption will substantially increase the property tax for the heirs.

As for property value, some of the local real estate agents have estimated that as much as 70% of the potential buyers of lake front property base their decision to buy based on whether short term rental of the property is allowed. I suppose that number decreases substantially for non-lake front property, but for the sake of this discussion, lake front is usually the higher valued property and, therefore, bears the brunt of the residential tax burden in Granite Shoals. If the ban on short term rentals is enacted, property values will go down for everyone.

Most people buy property, as opposed to renting, because they view their home as an investment. As long as you are not selling, low property values are a good thing - lower taxes. But when the time comes to sell, you want the value to be high. Therein lies the contention that the opposition to short term rentals is "short sighted". The proponents on the ban are trading future property value for slight possibility that a short term residence rental may be near them and that they may be inconvenienced or bothered by activities at that residence.

I am 58 and nearing retirement. I don't want the city to take away one of the property rights I have enjoyed on the property I bought in Granite Shoals 17 years ago.

[harvey]

So what has changed over the last several weeks? A homeowner's inability to rent our own home was a city ordinance that was not enforced. Is the city going to use/add resources to enforce this ordinance now? If not, then the ordinance, and any modification, is meaningless and nothing will change.

[lakelubber]

Up until about 2 years ago the official position of the city was that short term rental of R-1 zoned property is allowed under the current ordinance. This precedence is evidenced by letters and statements made by city officials to people who asked if the practice was allowed. These letters and statements, at the very least, indicated that the ordinance was vague as to the issue and therefore allowed. Mayor Reilly said at the last council meeting that he spoke with the person who drafted the current ordinance and that person said the ordinance intended to allow short term rental. It wasn't that the city failed to enforce the current ordinance banning short term rentals, as is one contention of those supporting the ban, it was that the ordinance allowed short term rental and there was nothing to enforce. The city's approval of the practice is further evidenced by their allowing a vacation home owner to advertise his short term rental on the city's "link" section of its website.

It wasn't until guests of one property owner violated noise and other city ordinances and someone brought the question to the new city attorney, and he determined that, in his opinion, the current ordinance did not allow short term rentals. This happened within the past couple of years and there may have been one other similar complaint.

The fact is that many people bought property with the intention of renting it to vacationers based on these determinations by the city. Banning short term rental now exposes the city to legal challenge. An after-the-fact restriction of those property owner's right to realize income from their property could constitute a "taking" by a governmental entity without compensation.

I believe a reasonable compromise solution to this issue is for the city council not to ban short term rental, thus avoiding the equity and legal issues mentioned earlier. The city could, however, require registration of short term rentals with reasonable license application and renewal fees, limits on the number of guests based on septic system capacity, and notice to guests that ordinances controlling noise, parking, etc. will be enforced. Repeated ordinance violations by the guests of a property owner would result in the suspension of the license. The fees collected would provide a funding source for city-wide ordinance enforcement, not just violations as a result of short term rental.

[K5JSW]

Lakelubber, not a bad approach IMHO

[Pure Texan]

man have yall read Mayors new newsletter? It sure makes sence to me.

just e-mail him and he will put you on his list. mayor@graniteshoals.net

[Immune]

How about an ordinance to wipe our rears? Seriously, do we really need more government telling us how to live and how to manage our property? There are so many already its overwelming. A frat party causes a disturbance, citations are handed out and the issue is taken care of. I am not a renter but in my opinion, if somone wants to rent a house they own, then it is their right. I find myself seldom visiting this forum anymore because all it seems to be anymore is disgruntled people always complaining about this and that. Nothing better to, I guess.

[Wolfe]

How about an ordinance to wipe our rears? Seriously, do we really need more government telling us how to live and how to manage our property? There are so many already its overwelming. A frat party causes a disturbance, citations are handed out and the issue is taken care of. I am not a renter but in my opinion, if somone wants to rent a house they own, then it is their right..

BRAVO!
And as I said earlier, little by little the govt. whether it be federal or local is creeping in on our lives and freedoms. Everyone here complains about the federal govt., but their local govt. is doing that exact same thing, just a smaller scale.

[rbusfield]

Pure Texan - No, I have not read the newsletters. I have requested all of them under the TORA/TPIA and will post them if and when I get them. I would ask that if you have them please post in a new or appropriate forum topic.

Has anyone seen the new ordinance or the requirements to 'Grandfathered In'?

[harvey]

Is it true that this Tuesday's City Council meeting will have the Council voting for/against Ordinance 409-E?

If so, does anyone know where I can find the text of this ordinance?

[Frank_Reilly]

Our incoming city manager, Judy Miller, who has a great deal of planning experience, has asked for the chance to provide some input to the ordinance. Her official start date is not until 2/8, so I will be asking the council to postpone action on this item until she has the opportunity to review it and provide us with any recommendations. Therefore, I do not expect any council action on the matter tomorrow.

[commonsense]

The real issue is NOT short term rentals - it IS irresponsible behavior! A partial or even a full ban on short term rentals does nothing to address the real problem and only creates a whole new set of problems for everyone. Property rights issues, law suits, increased workload for City staff, etc. Is the City going to setup a "rental police" department? A short term rental ban ordinance is unfair, complicated and unenforceable. We already have ordinances addressing irresponsible behavior.

[eachergreens@gmail.com]

I live on the water and agree with JSKR. I love it on weekends when lots of people are using the lake. GS comes to life. An owner near us doesn't rent STR. He and his family and friends park everywhere and sometimes set off fireworks and party loud before and after midnight. Another owner near us has rented and swapped his lake house. I didn't even know about this owner until the issue with STR came up. It appears there have been only two complaints about STR and those have been resolved. I am not against STR. If STR is outlawed, an entire pool of buyers will be eliminated, further stagnating home sales prices.

[Nature Lover]

STRs have been going on in GS for a long time and until two misbehaved, most (including myself) didn't know they existed. I don't want to see them outlawed. In the famous words of one of our cc members, "I might want to rent mine out sometime." The lake is so much more fun when there are lots of people on it. I enjoy sitting by the lake and watching people have fun.

[harvey]

The real issue is NOT short term rentals - it IS irresponsible behavior!

Perfectly said! There are sufficient noise and nuisance ordinances already on GS books. In fact, the draft of the new ordinance (#409) states "Each renter must sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the City's ordinances (including noise and nuisance) and the requirements herein." While this is a good idea, how many homeowners/residents/and their guests know these (or any of the City's) ordinances?

It appears that consensus is moving towards the direction that the ban on STR is inappropriate and that's good news.

[Nature Lover]

Perfectly said! There are sufficient noise and nuisance ordinances already on GS books. In fact, the draft of the new ordinance (#409) states "Each renter must sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the City's ordinances (including noise and nuisance) and the requirements herein." While this is a good idea, how many homeowners/residents/and their guests know these (or any of the City's) ordinances?

It appears that consensus is moving towards the direction that the ban on STR is inappropriate and that's good news.

Someone I know is consumed with the issue of banning STR to the point of driving past some STRs (not even close to this person's daily route) on a regular basis and taking notes of vehicles there, etc. So don't count on cool heads to prevail. Some have said STRs will ruin GS. I say, what? Kind of like it ruins Horseshoe Bay who has no problems with STR? I can only hope. I'm told bad behavior there, be it full time resident or their guests or STRs are dealt with by the police.

[harvey]

Someone I know is consumed with the issue of banning STR to the point of driving past some STRs (not even close to this person's daily route) on a regular basis and taking notes of vehicles there, etc.

That's hilarious because the introduction to the ordinance states "WHEREAS, the regulations established by this Ordinance are specifically designed to lessen congestion in the streets..." Sounds like the scope of the ordinance should be expanded to include these people too :)

Whether you are for or against the ordinance, EVERYONE should get a copy of the proposal from the City and read it.

[rbusfield]

Lets talk about how lack of tourism local business:

1) We have a new Tennis Center coming to GS, but no where to stay, unless you count Marble Falls and Kingsland, which both have short term rentals.

2) Did anyone ask the local business owners? To my knowledge, the local business owners were not notified of this pending ordinance. The exception would be the owners of the Farmhouse and I understand that they are for banning STR in GS because they own several rentals in Kingsland. (Funny. Confusing, but funny)

Maybe the Granite Shoals Chamber should get involved.

[harvey]

rbusfield - you're being far too logical.

[commonsense]

Many folks out here are stuck in the 60's and have no concept of modern commerce. Too bad - as these people vote - without knowledge, logic or common sense. Maybe some of them will get educated and join the 21st century. One can hope.

[Waldo]

When will the census date be made public? I am dying to know if Marble Falls population has exceeded the greatly inflated population of Granite Shoals. Feedback please.

[Waldo]

So sorry, I meant DATA not Date.

[Caretaker]

When will the census date be made public? I am dying to know if Marble Falls population has exceeded the greatly inflated population of Granite Shoals. Feedback please.


The concensus is that the census will not make any census to those who took the census because they wont have a consensus of that census.Does that make census?

[lakelubber]

I have heard that GS population of 5025 was calculated by assigning a certain number of people to each property that has a water tap. This is fine, except it counts as residents all those part-time residents who own water front vacation homes and have primary residences elsewhere. Most of these people don't vote in GS, either because they choose not to or because they don't know they can. Lets face it - GS is nothing without Lake LBJ and the STR issue is really a water front property issue. I am not aware of any current STRs that aren't on the water. Here are some interesting facts:

1. There are a little over 700 water front homes in GS
2. Tax rolls show a little over 200 of those 700 owners live in GS and claim homestead exemptions
3. The majority of them claim "Over 65" exemptions

Having attended several of the public meetings on STRs, it seems to me that the most fervant opponents to STR are lake front owners. This makes sense logically because full-time residents in lake front homes would be most affected, potentially, by the activity. Looking at the facts above, it also makes sense that most of them are over 65 and, therefore, pay much lower taxes than the part-time residents. They have no immediate incentive to recognise the benefits of STRs on the community and on their property values. As I have said here before, I think this is a very shortsighted position.

Back to my point. The vocal minority of property owners (as shown above) are constantly in the ear of the City Council and the council members listen because these people VOTE. Until the silent majority, meaning the part-time residents, exercise their right to vote in GS by changing their county of residence, the minority will continue to dictate the course GS takes. My investment in GS is too great to let it decline, so I am now a voter in Burnet County.

The City Council has a great vision for GS to become a sustainable, diversified, vibrant community. Read the Comprehensive Plan on the City's website. (By the way, that plan calls for the promotion of vacation rentals and B&Bs.) I prefer the GS of the Comprehensive Plan over a retirement community.

Lets reduce what has become a "mountain" back to a "molehill" by registering and regulating STRs, not banning them. The certain economic good outweighs the potential bad that can be handled through the existing nuisance ordinances.

[lakelubber]

And another thing - I think it is ironic that the city needs to count the part-time residents to qualify as a home rule city, but when decisions are made, their opinions are discounted because most of them are not registered in Burnet County to vote.

[harvey]

Excellent points lakelubber. As a non-homesteaded (currently, but that can change), lake-front owner who periodically trades weekends away from the lake for cash, favors, or merely being nice from family or friends I am absolutely AGAINST any effort to control STR in any manner.

Who will enforce any new regulations/ordinances?

As you alluded to, the initial issues that brought this topic to the fore, could have been handled by the aggrieved neighbor had they contacted the police immediately to enforce the nuisance ordinances already on the books. They didn't and because they didn't they are now using this issue to divide our city.

Now back to the regulation ... it is unenforceable. In America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

What will happen when an extended family member spends a weekend in MY house without me being there (and without any money changing hands)? Should my neighbors call the STR enforcement patrol to demand to see "the papers" of my guests? Are my guests to sign in at the front gate of the city? I could continue to make a long, ridiculous list, but hopefully everyone reading this thread gets my point: Use the nuisance ordinances already on the books and stop there.

[countryboy]

Are these STRs paying a HOT tax or could that be implemented??. The reason I ask is that alot of River homes I visit which are STRs pay a HOT on top of the daily,weekly or monthly rental.. Not trying to harp on anyone or be for or against I am just wondering. if GS has that.

[lakelubber]

Countryboy, the city enacted a tax effective Jan. 1, 2011. The 7% city tax replaces the 5% county tax and should produce over $21,000 per year just from the existing vacation home rentals. The state also taxes at a rate of 6%.

[countryboy]

So that tells me they want to lose that tax by stopping STRs. What would they replace that with?Is it so all those wanting to visit GS have to stay some new place being built.?

[lakelubber]

I haven't heard of any plans to build new accomodations for visitors. Other than Tropical Hideaway and the few vacation home rentals there are no other sources of hotel tax revenues available to the city. $21,000 a year would go a long way toward promoting tourism and additional accomodations in Granite Shoals.

The question is, why would anyone build a hotel in GS when all of the waterfront property (with the exception of Tropical Hideaway) is zoned R-1? Answer - Currently undeveloped waterfront outside the city. Without a watewater system that seems unlikely. The only reliable source of tax revenue for the foreseeable future is vacation rentals.

The city could fund the promotion of tourism in GS with tax from vacation rentals for a few years and then ban the activity - but that just wouldn't be right!

[Nature Lover]

Some opposed to STR are very short sighted. One wants to sell and travel. Well, duh! Turning buyers away.

[lakelubber]

Some real estate agents say that up to 70% of vacation home buyers they represent will not even consider a property if the ability to rent short term is prohibited. That property right is an important option.

Also, what about the people who don't want to sell, but want to travel? They could use vacation rental as a way to cover the expenses of keeping their home while they travel. The same is true for people who are forced to move to a nursing home or closer to relatives, but want to keep their lake home in the family. I see nothing but benefits to all home owners and the city from regulated vacation home rentals.