Short Term Rentals

lakelubber · 07-27-2010, 12:01 PM

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 · 07-27-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 07-27-2010, 05:59 PM

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 · 07-28-2010, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfe

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 · 07-29-2010, 08:11 AM

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.

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 · 08-01-2010, 09:32 AM

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

Frank_Reilly · 08-04-2010, 11:39 PM

The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=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 · 08-04-2010, 11:43 PM

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 · 08-05-2010, 10:15 AM

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 · 08-05-2010, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

What the heck are you saying?!

Wolfe · 08-05-2010, 03:11 PM

[QUOTE=Frank_Reilly;7523]The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=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 · 08-05-2010, 03:29 PM

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 · 08-11-2010, 01:35 PM

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 · 08-13-2010, 05:05 AM

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.

Pure Texan · 08-13-2010, 12:18 PM

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 · 08-15-2010, 01:40 PM

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 · 08-16-2010, 06:29 AM

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 · 08-16-2010, 12:43 PM

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 · 08-17-2010, 12:04 AM

Lakelubber, not a bad approach IMHO

Pure Texan · 08-17-2010, 10:30 AM

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 · 08-20-2010, 04:42 AM

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 · 08-20-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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..

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 · 08-30-2010, 09:04 PM

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'?

07-29-2010, 08:11 AM	#30
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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. 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! Last edited by tonigking; 07-29-2010 at 08:49 AM. Reason: spelling/PS

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-27-2010, 12:01 PM	#26
lakelubber New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4	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.

07-27-2010, 05:59 PM	#28
Moonlyp New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1	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.

08-01-2010, 09:32 AM	#31
gsowner New Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1	Jubilee - thank you for pointing out both sides of this issue.

08-04-2010, 11:39 PM	#32
Frank_Reilly Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Granite Shoals, Texas Posts: 152	The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=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.

08-04-2010, 11:43 PM	#33
Frank_Reilly Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Granite Shoals, Texas Posts: 152	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.

08-05-2010, 10:15 AM	#34
Pure Texan New Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heart o'Texas Posts: 26	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?

08-05-2010, 03:11 PM	#36
Wolfe Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 301	[QUOTE=Frank_Reilly;7523]The City of Austin is also grappling with short term rentals: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=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!

08-05-2010, 03:29 PM	#37
butchkemper Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Marble Falls, TX, USA Posts: 63	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

08-11-2010, 01:35 PM	#38
lakelubber New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4	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.

08-13-2010, 05:05 AM	#39
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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.

08-13-2010, 12:18 PM	#40
Pure Texan New Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heart o'Texas Posts: 26	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.

08-15-2010, 01:40 PM	#41
lakelubber New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4	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.

08-16-2010, 06:29 AM	#42
harvey New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	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.

08-16-2010, 12:43 PM	#43
lakelubber New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 4	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.

08-17-2010, 12:04 AM	#44
K5JSW New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 26	Lakelubber, not a bad approach IMHO

08-17-2010, 10:30 AM	#45
Pure Texan New Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heart o'Texas Posts: 26	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

08-20-2010, 04:42 AM	#46
Immune Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 57	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.

08-30-2010, 09:04 PM	#48
rbusfield New Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3	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'?