Short Term Rentals
 

It looks like Gilford will join Laconia and Meredith by enacting short term rental regulations.

36 New Hampshire municipalities have adopted some kind of short-term rental rules and definitions.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...a2c837098.html

This is awesome! I actually came here to ask this question. I would love to see more regulations getting people to actually live in their properties and build relationships with their neighbors and communities instead of having constant rental turnover. Glad that Gilford is getting on board with this!

There's a difference between "old money" and "new money:" old money need not concern itself with renting a property out in order to help meet the payment requirements.

Two sides to consider
 

While I understand the sentiment against short term rentals and the desire for more regulation, it's important to acknowledge that there is another side of the coin.

As a real-life example, consider an elderly couple who bought their lake house in the 1950s but aren't necessarily wealthy. Now, the widow requires constant nursing care which can be incredibly expensive. The income generated from a short term rental is actually paying for her care and helping to keep the house in the family. This may be their only option to keep the property and retire there in the future.

It's important to consider the individual circumstances and potential benefits before dismissing short term rentals altogether.

All true. But, when the property owner refuses to address short term rental issues like parking, noise and garbage. A city or town must actively get involved to protect others. We have three short term rentals in our neighborhood. Not permitted by the city. However, the owners are responsive when issues arise

The Laconia ordinance is actually pretty well written.

''1. Permitted or prohibited in the following zones:
a. Permitted in the Commercial Resort (CR) and Shorefront Residential (SFR)
zones with no limitations on the number of separate rental periods.
b. Prohibited in Industrial (I), Industrial Park (IP) and Airport Industrial (AI)
zones.
c. Prohibited in all other zones except when the property is owner-occupied.''

I think the only issue would be that if a permit is required, they must enforce that anyone using STR have a permit. It can't be some do and some don't.

The problem would be the courts questioning why the ordinance is being selectively enforced.

Live Free or Request Regulations
 

Try to think back to why you wanted to move to New Hampshire. Leave your regulations in Connecticut and New Jersey.

I was born here.
I live three miles from the hospital in which I was birthed, and two miles from the home I came to afterward.

reason for move
 

I did not move to New Hampshire to avoid regulation. Regulation is not necessarily bad, re the train wreck in Ohio. My move was about another totally different issue.
Thankful for the rain we are having in California. Will be returning in a few
short weeks.

_________________________________________

I am a retired workaholic and continuing aquaholic

I think this is the issue not whether somebody rents or not. It's how the renters "act". So don't ban rentals for some bad actors, ban the bad behavior. If things like disturbing the peace were enforced there wouldn't be a problem. I would hate to have renters next door who party all night and all day, but you can also get neighbors who do that. You can also bet that a license will be required, or something of the sort, so that the towns can collect money.

For Laconia, its a permit.

Motels, hotels, and B&B have to follow those rules... so an AirBnB should not be given special consideration.

Yes, but far too many justify their STR by saying "I need to to pay my taxes" when in fact, it is the value of the 5500sf house they built instead of the 1500sf cottage they started with which is the true cause of their tax heartburn. If they can't afford the taxes, take on a couple of boarders, or sell the property.

That may be true in some situations but many people have different circumstances.

In some cases as people get older and retire their income is no longer what it was when they were working. They have a family home on the lake that has been enjoyed for generations but with the reality of rising maintenance costs and property taxes it has become difficult to stay ahead financially.

Maybe a health situation for them or a family member has drained them financially but they want to try to keep that home they have long planned to retire in and pass it on to the next generation.

I would not be that quick to tell people to sell their homes. I find that the longer people have been on the lake the more respect they have for it. Families that have been on the lake for decades train the next generation about boating rules and etiquette.

If a little rental income helps them maintain possession of their home I think that is a good thing. There are laws in place regarding noise, parking Etc. I would have no problem calling the police if a neighboring property became a nuisance.

Many people have been driven out of their homes by increased taxes.
A good example is Leighton Ave on lake Winnisquam.
Those lots sold for $1,500 to $2,500 back in the 50's and many people of modest means were able to enjoy lakefront living and these homes were passed along to family in later years.
Taxes are now over 20K in many of these properties.....a pretty big hit for
a retiree or working person.
Not all lake front owners are millionaires

The problem, from my perspective as one who has rented out my home, is people who buy for the purpose of short term rentals.

We were lucky enough to rent for a week or two at a time for years before we could afford a place of our own, so I would not want to deprive anyone else of doing the same. But we always treated these places and their neighbors as well as we would our own. And I doubt any of those neighbors sensed anything different other than our minivan.

The real issue here is abuse--overcrowding and/or noise. There shouldn't be 8 cars and a party for 20 in the two bedroom cottage with an aging septic system that the nice old folks bought in 1952...So it's no surprise to me that these things drive more regulation.

True enough. My understanding of the IRS rules around investment property is that they want it to be all investment or all personal use to get the most out of the law--restricting personal use to two weeks. Not so many years ago, renting short term was a difficult enterprise, advertising in local papers, paying for long distance calls (remember those?) Now with internet, DocuSign, and VRBO, anybody can be a landlord for a week. And real estate management firms have sprung up all over to build the STR market even more.
Then, the pandemic came along pushing lakes region real estate values into the sky.
We'll have to learn how to dal with all this and it won't be done in 10 years. I hear good things about the northwest. Perhaps Idaho will be the next New Hampshire. The Yellowstone TV series has already prompted abusive development in Montana IMHO.

I’m in Washington…Idaho is beautiful…pristine lakes, big mountains…great skiing…gotta be careful of doomsday preppers…yike!

I feel like I post "if people did the right thing..." every six months or so.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

So pass it to the next generation and stop dubbing around.
When my grandmother was done, she went to a retirement home and my mother took over the cottage. Now my mother is done, moved to Florida, and her granddaughter and great grandson live there.

But if they are concerned with steady income... a long term rental is the key.

This is the real issue. There will always be people who abuse the system. Maybe if you’re going to rent your house out, it should be inspected beforehand by the town. If the septic system is small and outdated it should have to be replaced.

We had a real problem years ago when one of the neighbors decided to rent for the summer. It was just a small camp with a 50 gallon septic tank. Sometimes there would be as many as eight cars in the driveway. We had a beautiful beach and they had none, so the tenants decided they would just take over our beach.

We spoke to the owners several times and they never believed that there were so many people there. they had a handyman go in to prove that the septic was fine.He put some red dye in the toilet and flushed it and sure enough it went right into the lake. Who wants to deal with this?
Not everyone is a good tenant and that is the problem. Believe it or not, the house still has that original septic tank because it has not changed hands in decades. We definitely need more regulation.

Septic system would be the State.
They may not require a new tank... just a new leach field.

If the handyman knew... and didn't report it. It could be an issue for them also.

I almost think it's safe to say these groups of 10-20 or more people don't do any house much good. I would never want that many people in my house-any size, any age!

I'm not sure these renters are intentionally a problem. They rent and then send out a FB notice, come see us, and people show up.

One of my neighbors rented out lakefront home. Three bedroom home. Went though a local agency.
Only rent to one family was supposedly a requirement.

One day I counted 11 cars parked in driveway.
And if each car came with 2 people. That is 22 people at home. And if any children came. Potentially 30+ people.

Does not rent anymore. But in the years renting. They replaced the television - twice. Stove/oven, dishwasher, microwave, recliner, and more. One exterior door had to be replaced also.

I'm sorry for your neighbor's bad experience. Renting sounds like easy money. Sounds like a management problem--the rental agreement should put a max on cars, guests, smoking, vaping, pets, age of renter, etc. Managing STR is a different game than long term leasing. I tried two different realtors to manage when I had a condo at the Weirs. Neither one made it past the first week, and I ended up doing it all myself. Being a landlord is a job, and you have to treat it as such.

"being a landlord is a job" absolutely, and one that not everyone is up too. I did it for many years, it was profitable but stressful. I now have commercial property, much less stressful.

Yes, but those people should look to a longer term rental instead of short term. Most STR regulations are for those properties rented for less than a month. And maybe "the next generation" can help finance the home they will be inheriting. There certainly is a place and time for short term rentals, and regulations are a positive to the issue.

Unless I had a strict landlord, I wouldn't want a rental next to me. However, there used to be a lot more "cottage colonies" for people to rent. Banning rentals will destroy our tourist economy. People have rented camps and cottage for many years. I think the answer is enforcement of noise ordinances and amount of people allowed, not banning.

Sounds logical ....

But my experience on the island with renters has been very disappointing to the extent I may be forced to sell this season.

I have involved MP, Town PD, Island Association ...all have been ineffective in controlling the disrespectful behavior of these individuals that feel entitled since they paid a fee to rent.

When the rules and laws aren't enforced by the authorities your bound to have chaos.

It's sad but if you're not close you have no control and people are like kids-do whatever they can get away with. Lots of people come to the lake today to party, it's not like it used to be. Look at all the rafters.

The biggest issue that causes regulations is abuse of the system and just outright too many people. Many of the issues we face in 2023 didn't exist in 1958....

Septic Tank regulations really didn't exist (or were far simpler) and we are all dealing today with those shortfalls.

Rentals weren't an issue then; minimal or no demand and plenty of land for building and development. Costs were a fraction back then.

What was the population in 1958? What is it in 2023?

Times they are a changing...... and not necessarily for the better.

Interesting you say rentals weren't an issue. There were a lot more cottage colonies, motels and such then. Demand for people to rent their houses came about because those have all disappeared, don't you think?

Sort of.
I was thinking/hoping that they would replace the cottage colonies and the like with condos that could be used as STR.
They are already generally built in the appropriate places.

Then this ''new'' building would be more like investing money into the property to freshen it up and supply some extra amenities.

This is totally an example that anyone would support. But, I think that everyone and their brother buying up the real estate in the lakes region to build an air bnb empire isn't good for the local economy or people who live in the area full time. This is part of what drove up prices by 40% over two years, which is an unsustainable pace.
Personally, we are considering buying a second home in the area, but we would not rent it out. We want to be up there as often as we can and one of the major factors we are considering is stability of the neighborhood and the proportion of people who live there at least 50% of the year. There are many short term rental owners who do a fabulous job of managing their properties, but there are just as many who rent to noisy, messy groups of people and don't enforce the rules. No one wants to live next to the latter group. The only way to standardize this sort of short term rental issue is to put in place regulations that will preserve the community for those who actually live their, and towns are right to put their citizens ahead of rental owners who manage from afar.

Without short term vacationers, no one in the future will have the memories of vacationing at Lake Winnipesaukee that I have read from the older Forum members (myself included) who vacationed here for a week or two in the past.

I can't imagine the Lakes Region not being a vacation land. Full-time residents aren't going to go to Fun Spot often enough to keep it in business.

Place all the other vacation oriented enterprises on the chopping block...The Mt. Washington, most restaurants (too much cooking at home by full-timers), scenic railroad, etc. How many time are you going to take The Cog Railway as a full-timer?

There's a lot of short-term rental agencies, like Bayside Rentals, one of the agencies I've used to rent my place while being 3,200 miles away for over 20 years with never a problem or complaint from neighbors. In fact my neighbors have made great friends with some of the short-termers who rented there. These agencies will be gone.

I also have rental property in San Francisco and when I am 3,200 miles away in the other direction, I've never had a problem. Once I got a call about a stuffed-up toilet and had it fixed within one hour.

Last year I got notice from long-term tenants in San Francisco that they were vacating at the end of July. Within 30 days, the apartment was inspected, security deposit refunded, entire unit re-painted, re-carpeted and re-rented. No agency involved. I never left Meredith.

I have fond memories of coming up here many motorcycle weekends staying in one room cabin colonies. Most of those are gone now and the few left are closed with "for sale" signs on them. Those times are gone and will never return, but a vacation area needs rentals. The new online sites are not as reliable as the local rental agencies, but they are popular for investors because it puts more money in their pockets. The biggest issue of the past 3 years has been investors scooping up single family property for rental. In the past, a single family property wasn't a profitable income producer.
I live in a city in Ma that gives a sizable discount for owners that occupy their homes, 20%. I'm not sure why more cities and towns don't do this? They would have to up the tax rate but it shift the burden to investors.

THere are obviously 2 sides to the issue... those that think they should be allowed to whatever they want to their property, and those that think the neighborhood should have some input on that.

Clearly with the advent of zoning laws, we as a society have decided the neighbors get input of of where/how a home can be built etc. The issue with the whole Airbnb model is that it is no longer a home, but now essentially an unlicensed motel. Nobody wants to live next door to motel. That's why they are zone restricted to certain areas of the City.

Woodsy

Very well stated.

If my Dad hadn’t rented a place on the lake for one or two weeks a summer I would never have known the beauty of the lake and eventually bought a place on the water. While I understand and empathize with the anti-short term rental side I wonder 1) what happens to the businesses in the lakes region without short term renters because there aren’t enough day trippers to keep it going. 2) once the short term renters find a new place to spend their time, will they ever come back? 3) why does “live free or die” only apply when it is someone else’s Ox being gored?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I do not think I can do WHATEVER I want with my property.

Wanting to use it as a rental is not anywhere near doing "anything I want" like a brothel, shooting range, strip joint, bar, dance hall, etc.

I just want to rent it to a nice family with kids so they can create memories like I have. I do not want a bunch of partiers and have never had such.

Maybe you should not live in, what has bee a vacation area, for longer than I assume you have been alive??

I also occupy my place on the Lake as much as I can. Usually several months of the year. I just rent during the times when the roads are congested beyond my patience

The more things change, the more they stay the same
 

I read this thread with great interest. My parents owned a small cottage colony on Weirs Blvd. back in the late 70s/early 80s. Back then, believe me, people were crazy. One family would invite its extended family and have cars all over the property. Another family would be so messy, that my mom resigned herself to throw out all the pots and pans after their two week stay. Don't even mention Bike Weekend. I think people have always been the same. Some are considerate and well-behaved, others not so much.

What has changed is our reaction to poor behavior. I will speak for myself, but my tolerance level is razor thin. My parents, who by the way did not show a lot of patience with me or my brothers, did not appear to overreact to others when bad things happen. They took things in stride. Frankly, they acted like adults.

We have an issue with short term rentals in SD/LB. Bad things happen, property gets damaged, people overreact, and the next thing you know we have rules essentially banning short term rentals. Being a full time resident, I supported these new rules. I didn't rent my house so what do I care?
Maybe I could have been a little more tolerant.

Well. . . when I moved here I lived in a cabin, heated with only wood and bathed in the river for 9 months out of the year. It was great. But population exists, and my way of life cannot be sustained when there are many. So regulation happens.

I recently had some proposals for vacation property management in FL. One of the proposals said they screened prospective tenants and indicated that there was a black list. I would suggest that a national management firm can do this well, and that an individual renting through the internet is at the other end of the spectrum. The higher management fees they get may be worth it. Losing rent after a tenant has damaged a place delaying the following rental can be a big problem for future rentals. Certainly, if you lose one week out of ten summer weeks, that's a big part of your cash flow. They also had an optional insurance program that paid up to $25K for tenant damage. It doesn't take much to chew up a security deposit. There was also an incentive program for tenants to report mishaps immediately, minimizing damage.

I don't think the municipalities are looking to block areas that have been historically STR. So areas of Laconia that are associated with vacation have different standards than areas that have traditionally not been seen as vacation rentals.

I believe a lot these issues could have been avoided if the Laconia chief of police enforced the current laws. His departments lack of enforcement is what forced the city management to act.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Short Term Rentals Gilford
 

Does anyone know if there are any updates on short term rental regulations in Gilford? I read where the voting had been postponed.

It appears it passed at a 8-1 ratio.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Bayside Rentals, Meredith, has stopped advertising themselves as a source for vacation rentals and now advertise "long-term" rentals.

This is a big change.

I had used them for years with great results. I don't rent my place out anymore, however.

Gilford STR regulations aimed at Commercial STRs
 

The regulations passed by Gilford this past week are aimed at commercial operators who bought homes solely to be used as STRs, not the folks renting out a room or an in-law apartment or an auxiliary apartment above their garage. Nor is it aimed at folks who rent out their homes for a couple of weeks or a couple of months, but otherwise live in their homes a majority of the time it is occupied. The town isn't concerned about those STRs and isn't interested in regulating them.

The Gilford regulations don't ban commercial STRs, but they do need to meet some requirements in order to operate in town. Those regulations are not onerous, but they do make sure the property owners are accountable for chronic problems that may occur, be it from the actions of renters or problems with the safety or habitability of their properties. It also makes sure the town has proper contact information should there be a problem, whether that contact info is for the owner or their agent (a property manager, for example) should a situation arise that needs to be addressed immediately.