Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Ban on new home rentals

  1. #1
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,614

    Ban on new home rentals

    Greenwood considering ban on new home rentals
    Headline and article from the Indy Star.

    Concerns over developers renting out newly constructed houses that they cannot sell has prompted the city's mayor to propose a ban on new homes being rented until three years after they are built.

    Mayor Charles Henderson said he was proposing the idea after a subdivision developer in the city reneged on his promise for it to be geared mainly toward empty-nesters. With 10 of the more than 40 lots developed for single-family homes, Henderson said the developer was using the remaining lots for rental houses.

    "I want to send a message that people deserve some protection and that anybody that buys into an addition can feel comfortable it isn't going to be turned into a rental community," Henderson. "It would help protect folks that get crossed up."

    The proposed ordinance includes a fine of up to $250 against violators.

    The proposal to ban new homes from being rented out is unusual, said Joe Molinaro, of the Chicago-based National Association of Realtors, ... "Typically, towns have powers through state laws to do zoning, .... he said. "It doesn't deal with whether a person can own or rent a space."
    No mention about how this would be enforced or could it be enforced ?

    How many times has a developer "promised" ; and might have over reached financially; their cash flow or the market ?
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  2. #2
    I think a lawsuit has found its place to happen.

    Of course, this being regressive ol' Indiana, there will be those that fully support the idea.

    "Well, you know, renters don't pay property taxes and so all us owners gotta foot the bill for them there renters and we shouldn't have to do that cause, you know, I fought the War to keep America Free and I worked at the GM plant all those years and I paid my taxes and my kids are all grown but I gotta pay this hoooge school tax and I don't use them fancy schools they built for these kids here and if renters lived here, they'd have lots of stupid, dirty little snot-nosed kids running around that would need special classes and there'd be drug problems fer sure and we'd need more PO-lice and then I'd have to pay even more taxes."

  3. #3
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    1,184
    I may be wrong, but I think builders in the Las Vegas area have started doing this as well. I think they do it through an HOA.

  4. #4
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,005
    Blog entries
    2
    Really kind of upsets me. The house next door to mine is for rent currently. Upon speaking to many of my neighbors, I have received a number of "I don't want renters living here..."

    What is so bad about renting a house?
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  5. #5
    Quote Originally posted by cololi
    I may be wrong, but I think builders in the Las Vegas area have started doing this as well. I think they do it through an HOA.
    Private builders using private agreements is a lot different than the government doing it.

    Quote Originally posted by zman
    What is so bad about renting a house?
    Because those people rent house. Not people like us.

  6. #6
    Cyburbian Wannaplan?'s avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Gale Crater
    Posts
    2,845
    There are so many bad misconceptions out there about renters. My wife and I own a duplex, living in one side and renting out the other. Most of the people that apply to lease out the unit want a place that feels like home, but are financially straddled to actually buy one. They're decent people who have bad credit. We took in tenants who went through bankruptcy just a couple of years ago, and for the time being, there's no way they can afford to buy a home.

  7. #7
    Cyburbian jordanb's avatar
    Registered
    May 2003
    Location
    City of Low Low Wages!
    Posts
    3,236
    Man. I hope the courts make those xenophobic assholes cry.
    Reality does not conform to your ideology.
    http://neighborhoods.chicago.il.us Photographs of Life in the Neighborhoods of Chicago
    http://hafd.org/~jordanb/ Pretentious Weblog.

  8. #8
    Cyburbian Seabishop's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,653
    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    Man. I hope the courts make those xenophobic assholes cry.
    Well said.

  9. #9
    Cyburbian zman's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    9,005
    Blog entries
    2
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker
    Because those people rent house. Not people like us.
    That's right, I forgot. Seems when I was renting, I was a good tenant, but I am the only exception to the rule.

    Quote Originally posted by jordanb
    Man. I hope the courts make those xenophobic assholes cry.
    Where might I sign up to subscribe to your newsletter?
    You get all squeezed up inside/Like the days were carved in stone/You get all wired up inside/And it's bad to be alone

    You can go out, you can take a ride/And when you get out on your own/You get all smoothed out inside/And it's good to be alone
    -Peart

  10. #10
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    ????
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker
    Private builders using private agreements is a lot different than the government doing it.
    Agreed, hence the last part of my statement. I couldn't imagine a govt. putting like restrictions in place. My favorite all time statement heard at a Planning Commission meeting on a twinhome project I was working on was a lady who said that the only people who live in rentals are drug addicts, child molesters, criminals, and single moms. The Chairman of the PC was a single mom. The project got approved 5-0.

  11. #11
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,614
    The Indianapolis Star had a very sensible editoral about the proposed ordinance.

    Greenwood should evict rental ban idea
    Highlights:
    Our position: Greenwood's proposed ban on home rentals would be excessive intrusion into property rights.

    Banning rentals for three years could hurt the property values of all owners of newly built homes. It could make it difficult for renters to find new housing in the area. In an economic downturn, it could create a blight of vacant homes. And it could discourage new development.

    As council member Ron Deer suggested, it makes more sense to force developers to fully disclose what they plan to build.

    "If people are told one thing, and they buy into something else, the extent of our involvement in public policy would be to ask that that be disclosed," Deer said. "Ethically and morally, I think we should stay out of it."
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

  12. #12
    Cyburbian cch's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Machesney Park, IL
    Posts
    1,437
    I live in the last phase of a subdivision where the developer usually rents homes out for the first few years, because people feel more comfortable purchasing them after any settling and so forth has taken place. I know I didn't want to lay down my money for a spanking new home that could have problems. But we were happy to buy a 5 year old home that passed building inspection with rave reviews, and had been most recently rented by an elderly couple and their dog while they waited for their dream home to be constructed.

    Anyway, we do have some young punks living in rented homes in our neighborhood. They throw parties, and they don't keep up their lawns very well, and there is the occassional beer can in the road in front of their homes. But you know, our only awful neighbor is a family a couple homes down, where the parents do anything so their only daughter is cool and popular, and they own their home. They have the wildest parties, often resulting in guests' cars getting vandalized, and one night there was a big police swat because the parents had been providing drugs to their daughter and her friends. Renters don't necessarily make the worst neighbors.

  13. #13
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,128
    Quote Originally posted by zmanPLAN
    Really kind of upsets me. The house next door to mine is for rent currently. Upon speaking to many of my neighbors, I have received a number of "I don't want renters living here..."

    What is so bad about renting a house?
    I don't think it is the renters per se, as opposed to the absentee landlord experience. Many landlords don't give a crap about their rentals and do the minimum they can. If they lived lets say next door, the landord would have more of a vested interest in ensuring the property stays in good condition and that the renters know all laws that would apply to them.
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  14. #14
    "I want to send a message that people deserve some protection and that anybody that buys into an addition can feel comfortable it isn't going to be turned into a rental community," Henderson. "It would help protect folks that get crossed up."
    It will certainly feel better and protect property values for the area to be turned into a ghost town.

  15. #15
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    438
    No way that will hold up, lol... IMO What I think is funny is, its not the fact that people are renting it is the upkeep of the property that I believe is the real issue, RIGHT? So just bump up enforcement if the areas start going bad go after the owner of the house, as well as the renter is it is rented. I think the town is going about it all wrong, and can't imagine them winning that battle in court. My HOA has some verbage of renting in it, but I'm not sure it would hold up. But it does have one saving grace maybe, in that when you buy a house in the HOA you agree prior to abide by the existing regs so, not sure how that would fit in. I don't know at some point it doesn't matter though what you agree to if its unconstitutional. Where that line is I guess is for the courts to decide??? I can't see a City winning this battle the way they are approaching it. If approached right it would be a simple one... Sounds like a politician just spouting off...

  16. #16
    Cyburbian H's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2003
    Location
    MKS
    Posts
    2,847
    Insane, so renters are only entitled to "old" houses? If someone can afford the rent and the developer is satisfied doing that, then what is the harm (besides living next to "them" )...

    My father was a single-family (sprawl) home developer in Atlanta from the 1970s to the 1990s and had to rent a few homes here and there that he could not sell... I tell you, he was finally glad to get rid of that last one a few years ago... renting is usually a royal pain for a developer and their last choice, but it is not always feasible to let the house sit vacant and 'for sale'.
    "Those who plan do better than those who do not plan, even though they rarely stick to their plan." - Winston Churchill

  17. #17
    Cyburbian Plan-it's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In the Peach State
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally posted by Vlaude
    No way that will hold up, lol... IMO What I think is funny is, its not the fact that people are renting it is the upkeep of the property that I believe is the real issue, RIGHT? So just bump up enforcement if the areas start going bad go after the owner of the house, as well as the renter is it is rented. I think the town is going about it all wrong, and can't imagine them winning that battle in court. My HOA has some verbage of renting in it, but I'm not sure it would hold up. But it does have one saving grace maybe, in that when you buy a house in the HOA you agree prior to abide by the existing regs so, not sure how that would fit in. I don't know at some point it doesn't matter though what you agree to if its unconstitutional. Where that line is I guess is for the courts to decide??? I can't see a City winning this battle the way they are approaching it. If approached right it would be a simple one... Sounds like a politician just spouting off...
    I believe that the HOA can enforce those guidelines if they are in the covenants. You buy into a new subdivision with covenants with the knowledge about what the rules and regs are, at least you should know. Therefore, you voluntarily decide to purchase there knowing the restrictions.

    Now government mandates, that is a different story. It is common practice here in the suburbs of Atlanta, but it is not enforceable nor do I think it is appropriate. They way they get around the ambiguous nature of these mandates is to require the developer to put a ___% rental threshold in the covenants as part of the authorization resolution. It is kind of creepy.
    Satellite City Enabler

  18. #18
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    438
    Yeap Plan-it, I agree with you in it is a voluntary agreement when you purchase the property like I stated, so it does have that going for it vs a mandate from a city or county. Which I don't think would hold water. However, you can't give up certain rights afforded to you even if you agree to them.

    That is really weird, how can a city force a developer to agree to something like that. Is it like contract zoning??? I really do not believe in a typical case a City can control rental properties legally. Maybe I am wrong but I don't see how they could win that in court, as the use probably meets all of the zoning requirements. I could see if it was a project funded with tax dollars for low-to-mod income or something where the City has some direct control, but this is different. In reality most cities have no reason to control such things. Most of the perceived and sometimes justified problems with rental properties is maintenance and most cities have code enforcement to ensure properties are maintained appropriately.

  19. #19
    Cyburbian Luca's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,150
    I don't see how this could possibly be legal/constitutional.

    If the community is worried about run-down properties and absentee landlords they just need to mandate high minimum standards for rental properties.

    Nonsense.
    Life and death of great pattern languages

  20. #20
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    438
    Luca, not high standards just for rental properties, but all properties. Like I said these issues are not rental issues per se. They are CODE ENFORCEMENT, it doesn't matter how occupant has the right to live in the house. It is irrelevant to what the City is concerned about, or should be concerned about. Their concerns appear to be maintenance, so just let code enforcement do their job and everything should be fine...

  21. #21
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Could this technically be considered a "taking?" If the builders/developers could prove that this restriction reduces the value of the homes (which it would for me), they may have a case.

  22. #22
    Cyburbian Plan-it's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In the Peach State
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally posted by jmello
    Could this technically be considered a "taking?" If the builders/developers could prove that this restriction reduces the value of the homes (which it would for me), they may have a case.
    I personally do not see this as a taking issue. People have the value of their property reduced in many ways without meeting the threshold of a regulatory taking, all the time (i.e. environmental laws, future transportation improvements, downzoning, etc.). I do see this as a form of economic discrimination (exclusionary zoning), but not a regulatory taking. At least that is my non-lawyer opinion.
    Satellite City Enabler

  23. #23
    Cyburbian jmello's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Clayobyrne, CB
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally posted by Plan-it
    I personally do not see this as a taking issue. People have the value of their property reduced in many ways without meeting the threshold of a regulatory taking, all the time (i.e. environmental laws, future transportation improvements, downzoning, etc.). I do see this as a form of economic discrimination (exclusionary zoning), but not a regulatory taking. At least that is my non-lawyer opinion.
    I am specifically referring to a scenario where these regulations are enacted after the developer has 1) bought the land, 2) been approved or 3) finished with construction. Also, what if there are already signed contracts for some of the homes when these regs are enacted? This is just a stupid idea, plain and simple, regardless of the moral implications.

  24. #24
    Cyburbian Plan-it's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2005
    Location
    In the Peach State
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally posted by jmello
    I am specifically referring to a scenario where these regulations are enacted after the developer has 1) bought the land, 2) been approved or 3) finished with construction. Also, what if there are already signed contracts for some of the homes when these regs are enacted? This is just a stupid idea, plain and simple, regardless of the moral implications.
    I agree that scenario is different and that the whole prohibition is problematic, no matter the situation.
    Satellite City Enabler

  25. #25
    Cyburbian Plus
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    De Noc
    Posts
    17,614
    BUMP - UPDATE

    Greenwood rejects ban on rentals
    Council defeats plan to prohibit leases of new homes for 3 years

    Headline and Article from the Indianapolis Star:
    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...16/1006/NEWS01

    Highlights:
    Realtors said the ordinance would hamstring homeowners who might have to face foreclosure on their property. "If you take an ordinance and apply it to one particular situation, that would have a negative impact on the entire community," said Chris Pryor, governmental affairs director for the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors.
    Oddball
    Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
    Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
    Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
    From Kelly's Heroes (1970)


    Are you sure you're not hurt ?
    No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
    Broke parts take a little longer, though.
    From Electric Horseman (1979)

+ Reply to thread

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 10
    Last post: 16 Oct 2012, 4:42 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 22 Aug 2012, 3:50 PM
  3. Uses Allowing rentals in an old motel?
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 8
    Last post: 04 May 2011, 12:28 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last post: 27 Jan 2011, 10:18 AM
  5. Condos vs. rentals
    Land Use and Zoning
    Replies: 6
    Last post: 03 Nov 2010, 4:45 PM