Short Term Rentals

tonigking · 07-22-2010, 01:07 PM

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 · 07-22-2010, 01:32 PM

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 · 07-22-2010, 06:45 PM

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

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.

Pure Texan · 07-23-2010, 01:43 PM

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 · 07-23-2010, 03:42 PM

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 · 07-23-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonigking

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

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.

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 · 07-23-2010, 05:25 PM

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 · 07-23-2010, 06:44 PM

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 · 07-23-2010, 07:38 PM

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 · 07-23-2010, 08:21 PM

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!

cleaner · 07-23-2010, 09:59 PM

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 · 07-24-2010, 06:56 AM

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 · 07-24-2010, 08:26 AM

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 · 07-24-2010, 11:53 AM

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 · 07-25-2010, 10:39 AM

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 · 07-25-2010, 10:53 AM

Toni, your rude words to another person on this forum on another post and I do quote "

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonigking

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 · 07-25-2010, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Jubilee · 07-25-2010, 11:22 AM

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 · 07-25-2010, 11:34 AM

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 · 07-25-2010, 11:53 AM

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 · 07-25-2010, 03:37 PM

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 · 07-26-2010, 08:39 AM

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.

tonigking · 07-26-2010, 09:35 AM

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 · 07-26-2010, 04:17 PM

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

harvey · 07-27-2010, 06:09 AM

"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?

07-22-2010, 01:07 PM	#1
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	Short Term Rentals 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.

07-25-2010, 11:22 AM	#18
Jubilee New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 5	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?

07-25-2010, 11:34 AM	#19
Webmaster Benevolent Admin Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: State of Confusion Posts: 1,034	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. __________________ GTO forum

07-25-2010, 11:53 AM	#20
JSKR Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Earth Posts: 695	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. Last edited by JSKR; 07-25-2010 at 12:03 PM.

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

07-22-2010, 01:32 PM	#2
Wolfe Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 301	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.

07-22-2010, 06:45 PM	#3
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	Wolfe, Growth is inevitable, no matter where you live. 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.

07-23-2010, 01:43 PM	#4
Pure Texan New Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heart o'Texas Posts: 26	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

07-23-2010, 03:42 PM	#5
Frank_Reilly Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Granite Shoals, Texas Posts: 152	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.

07-23-2010, 05:25 PM	#7
Wolfe Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 301	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?

07-23-2010, 06:44 PM	#8
Frank_Reilly Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Granite Shoals, Texas Posts: 152	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.

07-23-2010, 07:38 PM	#9
Wolfe Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 301	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

07-23-2010, 08:21 PM	#10
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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!

07-23-2010, 09:59 PM	#11
cleaner New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 1	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.

07-24-2010, 06:56 AM	#12
harvey New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	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.

07-24-2010, 08:26 AM	#13
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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)

07-24-2010, 11:53 AM	#14
harvey New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	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?

07-25-2010, 10:39 AM	#15
Pure Texan New Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heart o'Texas Posts: 26	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.

07-25-2010, 03:37 PM	#21
harvey New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	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.

07-26-2010, 08:39 AM	#22
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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.

07-26-2010, 09:35 AM	#23
tonigking Seasoned Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 347	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.

07-26-2010, 04:17 PM	#24
Jubilee New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 5	I think the use of "bone-head" is the only real attack in this string.

07-27-2010, 06:09 AM	#25
harvey New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 7	"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?