Gilford to have meeting on Short Term Rentals Monday
 

So it looks like Gilford will be possibly implementing restrictions and a possible permit system for the Short Term Rentals within Gilford. I for one would personally be against this, but understand concerns. We have a small studio that we rent out and have high standards including no rental to anyone under 30, limited to two adults with no pets or children, and anyone considered must have great reviews from previous stays with other hosts. Our rating is 5 stars and everyone of our guests was a pleasure to have. All were quiet and clean, we would welcome any of them back anytime.

I do believe there should be a process in order to host and fines for those who abuse, but please don't make this too difficult on home owners trying to offset property taxes, insurance, and heating costs.

Keep is simple for example:

1.) All Short term rentals should require permit
2..) Have a 3 strike policy. Police have to come each time is a strike, on the third one you loose your permit
3.) Maybe form a reasonable tax due to Gilford

Let keep this sensible and not a head hunting expedition

We spent years renting for a week or two at a time before we bought our place, so I'm sympathetic to short term rentals.

One other idea worth considering wrt sensibility is limiting the number of nights per year that a home can be rented and/or limiting the number of homes that a family can rent out. There's a big difference between an active caring homeowner renting for a few weeks to make ends meet, and an absent investor who's going into the AirBnB business.

I don't know what situation or problems prompted this discussion in Gilford but I would be against substantial changes or over regulation.

Many of the motels and waterfront rentals in the area have become owner occupied condos and created a shortage of places a that a family can vacation on the lake. The opportunity for families to enjoy the area (and spend money at local establishments) should not be taken lightly.

I have a home on the lake in Gilford that is a weekly rental in the summer and then one tenant occupies it for the winter. I have been renting this house out since 2004. I am very aware of what is going on at the house all summer because I live next door.

There are laws in place for noise, parking, fireworks, and any number of other things that may be a problem. I think the existing laws are adequate to stop any problems, should they occur.

As you probably know, the Town of Conway NH is a mount washington valley town with a population of about ten thousand residents and a lot of second vacation homes and it done gone and did this ..... http://www.conwaynh.org/wp-content/u...ted-by-BOS.pdf ..... :eek2: ...... about five pages .... rules .... str's .... December 2020

Timing
 

Perfect timing-so many of the folks who own such properties have rented for the winter and gone south. Can the Selectmen do this, or does it require Town Meeting vote?

I don't know what the specific regulations are in Meredith, but if the home five doors away from us is any indication, those laws are likely weak or poorly enforced (or maybe the immediate neighbors have simply given up). This home is rented throughout the summer to many one or two-week renters. Some are quiet but others make up for that with loud gatherings that extend to 1:00 AM and beyond, and at times unsafe boating. Police have been called and the owner talked to by neighbors but that hasn't really achieved a whole lot given the homeowner's absentee status. We're just far enough away to not be overly bothered by it but I sure wouldn't want to live next door.

I think effective regulation is key and I like the sort of ideas that Sunseeker suggests where there is a strong incentive to not exceed certain levels of tolerance (effectively giving nearby neighbors hope). I agree, don't over regulate. But there's a need for reasonable laws and repercussions that sting if they aren't followed.

If history is any clue... it will be an ongoing issue.
Each time those engaged in the activity will counsel for limited restriction and not going overboard; but over time it will increase until it is overwhelming.

They seldom hit hard enough to end the problem, they just coax it along with a new bandage every time it springs a leak.

We should definitely make Gilford more like Laconia…. Aka less desirable.

HOA's?
 

Without knowing for sure, I think most rental places in Gilford would be part of an HOA where there would already be rules and an enforcement process. I'm thinking about places like Lake Shore Park, Winnstock and Broadview. Other places, such as described by Tilton BB seem just fine as is. Loud party music is just (unfortunately) a current fact whether it be nightclubs, parties or wake boats.

Oh, for the peaceful times when you just carried a boom box on your shoulder.

LSP rules are NO renting. Now saying that I would be very surprised that people aren't

We have a year round home that we don't rent. We try to be up every weekend, hopefully to retire in the future. People near us rent their house on BNB website. It sucks, the majority of time it is a younger crowd who could care less about the rules, I am tolerant person but its getting old. YMMV.

Gilford Short Term Rentals
 

Hi.
Just curious. If Gilford does implement rules on short-term rentals, would it apply to all zones or just residential?

Depends on what the regulation states.

Jeb Bradley is sponsoring a new bill regarding this. You might want to look into it.

Supposedly he is trying to make amend it.
But the problem isn't a group of State Senators... elected officials are running smack into a labor housing shortage.

Grandfathering?
 

I'm curious as to how this will deal with pre-existing zoning.

Having now read the link--separate from this specific issue--these laws where states limit what towns can do (or the feds limit what states can do) really bug me. It's one thing if it's some big fundamental issue, like the right to vote or other constitutional stuff. But why should someone in Concord be telling a town what is or is not right for that town on something as mundane as short term rentals. Furthermore--why do they even care about this at a state level?

I wrote before that as someone who rented short term for years (decades), I think they are generally good. But this whole thing looks like AirBnB and other big business interests pressuring towns via the state. F them

I don't think the State or City would really care if there was an abundance of affordable workforce housing... Unfortunately, there is a huge shortage of affordable housing and short term/airbnb/vrbo investors gobble up what little inventory is left thus driving the prices even higher. While it might be financially beneficial to an investor, the neighborhood pays the price.

Woodsy

Not workforce housing
 

I don't think this has anything to do with low cost workforce housing not being available. We're talking about short term vacation rentals--expensive shorefront where the owner wants to offset high taxes and get a little cash flow when he is not using the property. As a side effect, this may benefit workforce housing. Owners who can't get the high summer rents will rent September through May for cheap just to keep somebody in the house, heat on, no vandalism, snow cleared, etc.

It does though. It is not just waterfront or even water access communities like Suissevale/ Balmoral etc. 5-10 years ago you may put a house in the rental program and done a winter rental. VRBO and Home Away have made it so easy to do short-term rentals, that most rentable houses are gobbled up by investors and rented out weekly.

My son is moving on Sunday :D, it took 6 months to find a decent place that was semi-reasonable. He is a manager at a parts store, he is local workforce. There is nothing out there.

The businesses that want labor September to May want year round labor. The summer tourism businesses need labor from May to September. Lots of summer closed early or curtailed their hours, many of the year-round are running on overtime
employees to the point of near failure.

Just to be clear--the bill in the link prohibits towns from banning short term rentals--it is a pro AirBNB bill. It will drive up the price of workforce housing as you warn

It still is not clear to me the definition of "Short Term Rental" -- ???

1-3 days?
1 Week ?
<30 Days ?


For example, our condo association restricts/ prohibits "Rentals" of less than 30 days.

.

Since the bill prohibits the prohibition of short term rentals, and nobody has ever discussed restricting long term rentals, this distinction does not really matter. All of the time periods in your post would be allowed in every town. (FLL might note that hourly rentals would be OK too;))

But you raise a great point--this lack of definition leading to everything being allowed everywhere is another sign that this is driven by corporate interests, not citizens.

Yeah we had an issue with renters from a house a few houses over. Luckily I had a lot of frontage and so did my neighbor that was full time so that gave us some buffer.

But it was fireworks almost every night. Because it was vacation for them.

Uncontrolled dogs that would wander onto our property and we couldn’t let our dogs out in our own yard. Luckily that would only happen a week here or there but you never knew who might show up.

Problem was owners were very good friends. At least they lived their full time and it was a separate cottage they rented.

When we shopped around for a new place we were VERY careful watching out for renters. Also need to watch out if there is a popular rafting spot right in front as well. You HAVE to shop for property at the peak of summer to know what you are getting into.

I like seeing activity on lakes more than most. When fellow owners say “they are gone” come September with a smile, I’m like, bummer they are gone. But there are always a few bad apples that do spoil the whole bunch.

The new spot I’m in, should be pretty good and stay pretty good. Adjacent home is worth $4 million easy. A neighbor down the road has a serious problem though and I feel bad for them. They just finished rebuilding too. But they have a really bad neighbor that rents to anything.

If the neighbor is a friend maybe you could encourage them to only rent with a lease that has a maximum occupancy limit, "No Fireworks" and a "No pets" policy.

Insert a clause in the lease that says any violation of the lease terms will result in a forfeiture of the entire security deposit plus additional damages, to be determined solely by the owner. That should encourage better behaviour.

Even though I advertise "No Pets" I get rental inquiries every year from people who have dogs that "Never bark" along with assorted other claims about their perfect pets. The response is: Sorry, as the ad says, no pets, this is not the right house for you to rent.

If you "Lease" for 6 months+, no room and meals tax. Anything less, yoi're supposed to put your license # in the "for rent" ad and pay the tax. To me, that means anything less than 6 months is short term. It looks like the bill prevents cities/towns/Country (sic) from zoning out short term rentals, but your HOA can still do whatever the members approve.

From NH RSA 48-A:1

Vacation rental" or "short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days. For purposes of this chapter, vacation rental and short-term rental are residential uses of the property and do not include a unit that is used for any nonresidential use, including retail, restaurant, banquet space, event center, or another similar use.

A one month or 30 day limit is not required. If a municipality desires to regulate housing through their zoning ordinance it may define the term however it chooses.

I understand that whatever comes out of the current discusions in Gilford will need to go before a Town Meeting to be voted upon.

And lose a friend, no way. They were there long before us, renting it for many years. Who am I to come in tell them what they can and can’t do. We moved to a better spot, not to far away. We didn’t move because of the renters.

Today's article.....
 

Today's article from the Daily Sun

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...4fde576dc.html

Woodsy

Definition of a Short Term Rental
 

This is the definition of a short term rental that Gilford has in the draft of the new regulations:

22.2.1 Short Term Rental – The rental of a dwelling unit for periods of up to thirty (30) consecutive days to transient occupants, lodgers, or guests, rented or offered for rent for fifteen (15) or more days in a calendar year, and where the dwelling unit does not otherwise constitute a hotel, motel bed-and-breakfast, cottage colony, boarding house, campgrounds, or other similar uses.

Violation notices will be sent similar to the notices sent for any code violation.

22.7.2 – Failure to correct a violation upon the issuance of two notices of violation and/or cease and desist orders within a twelve month period from date of first violation shall constitute grounds for revocation of the conditional use permit.

Gilford Short Term Rental
 

I hope that they pass something regulating short-term rentals in all zones. These rentals devalue abutting property. After all, who would want to move next door to an Air BNB ? A lot of these rentals have absentee landlords as well making virtual vetting their only way of screening their potential tenants. It's very unsettling being next door to transient housing. As for landlords that actually reside on the grounds of these rental properties, all the power to you. Rent away.....

Isn't Conway the best example of the pitfalls?
 

Isn't Conway the best example of this kind of ban? If so, Conway is still living with the paradoxes and pitfalls of this kind of law....

BTW I am also sympathetic to folks who try to defer some of their taxation by renting their properties. I have always taken the opinion that folks work so hard for a living that the loud card games until two in the morning, imbibing, etc... are inevitable. I try not to judge as their time is limited, they have the right to some fun, and I am lucky to live here permanently. My wife and I used to rent a house on Cape Cod for 20 years back in the 80s and 90s. The year-rounder guy next-door extended us a lot of "grace" for our "night-time antics".

Below is the Conway article that has been in place for a while - https://conwaynh.org/wp-content/uplo...ted-by-BOS.pdf

It still isn't settled, and I have a friend who lives there that says it is still a divided town. Court battles have ensued and it's still not all decided yet - see: https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2021-06...t-term-rentals

People tend to have strong feelings on this issue and polarization is high. Many of the businesses there have said they can't separate the COVID pandemic from the restriction on visitors by the town, but they all seem to agree that it didn't help. I don't think the secondary implications here were really considered by the Conway Selectmen, and I would urge the Gilford Selectmen to do so. I wonder if the Conway Selectmen have ever wondered "This was a good idea - why?"

I hope the same polarization doesn't happen on the Lake. And I for one wonder if there are other ways to make sure we can get to a WIN-WIN for both visitors and residents. But I know I'm not smart enough to come up with something!

They had it in the past.
Visitors would go to businesses that were specifically regulated and formatted for that purpose.

When a resident rents a room (sort of like a B&B), unless they are operating as a B&B under the old regulations, they would generally rent for months or years; thus not even invoking the M&R tax.

With everyone trying to us an AirBnb approach for a second home, and then claiming they doing so to offset taxes, they are eating up the existing supply of housing.
Since it is so expensive and a slow process to increase the supply of housing, the government must defer demand, at least until we can catch up on supply. Without that, there has to be labor wage inflation in the double digits.

They allowed themselves to get trapped with material inflation... and pretty soon mortgage rate increases that they may never get out from under this situation without very brutal regulation.

Going to be interesting to see where this goes.

I hope some of the tax revenue in Gilford has made it to the Town Attorney's office. There will be a lot of money spent on outside lawyers when the same lawsuits hit Gilford that are now hitting Conway. It will be interesting to see in the end exactly how much Conway ends up spending to defend these suits, and whether in the end they think it was worth it - even if they win....:confused:

If they win, they will counter sue for costs associated with the action.
They may have already filed it at the open, as we have seen when other local municipalities get sued.

On an issue that affects fundamental quality of life for a significant number of people, as the paper describes this, I think the town has to step up to the plate and do what they think is right, regardless of pushback from litigators. Otherwise, there's not much point in having a town government.

Good luck and I wish you well on your journey for sure...

I couldn't imagine ever putting my home on Air BNB or the like, but I would never begrudge those that do it to defer their costs...

And a boon to the Air BNB folks in the 7 other towns that allow it. I can recite the 3 others that may follow if it works in Gilford. They can afford the lawsuits as well. They won't get their money back either. The other 4 towns will never go for it. And for those of you who need the revenue to survive the high taxes of living here, who knows you may still have a place?

So all-in-all I think it will land where it lands...

Maybe everybody wins?
 

Actually, it may all be a moot point anyway - hot off the presses!

There seems to be a Compromise State of NH Bill (SB 249) with support from both Republican and Democratic Legislators, Business owners and Real Estate representatives.

The Bill proposes Banning any Bans on short term Rentals, but instead replaces Bans with common sense controls. I just knew there was a common-sense solution to this problem that can work for everyone - instead of you win and I lose results.... I love compromise!

Thankfully there are still smart people in the Legislature...

https://www.conwaydailysun.com/opini...erm%20rentals.

The Legislature seems to think it's a slam-dunk, and it will take effect June of 2022. It will grandfather Towns that have already banned STRs. So if the people and representatives want to act, I bet you can still get it if you act fast.

The way I read that legislation it just preserves the right of people to rent their property and prohibits municipalities from stopping that.

It also says "A municipality MAY adopt an ordinance........" Nothing requires the municipality to do so.

Other than that I don't see anything adding additional restrictions. On it's face, it looks like it just preserves rights that municipalities already have.

It is SO irritating when people read the bill before forming an opinion. Bravo Tilton for taking the extra step.

If you own property... the municipality will get its money back.
I don't think any municipality is credibly concerned with a second home owner... especially one that does not have residency in that community.

When voters can't afford a primary home, or rent, that sort of takes precedent.
The elected official that ignores it quickly becomes the focus of their angst.

Compromise
 

Interesting that only 3 of the 7 bullets on that list are all that's read by some people. But I guess on the other side the last 4 bullets will only be read by the.

Remember a compromise is that each side gives something up. But I guess for some folks a compromise means getting what you want?

Oh well, good luck tonight. I think the Selectmen should listen very carefully to the wishes of its citizens, either way.

If you have been in NH for a while, you determine that a compromise is not what they come up with.

They drag their feet until it reaches a fever pitch... for which there is no easy fix... and then they tip-toe and have to keep coming back to the table for more.

The other bullet points don't matter, because our local municipalities are not in the same situation. We don't have a demand problem at our businesses. Covid is having little to no effect on us.

Unless you are asserting that the last 4 bullets give the towns rights that they do not already have, then this is not a compromise--the state is giving up nothing. Maybe you should just thank Tilton for his close reading?

The bill reminds me of the Campground M&R bill.
The Legislature thought it was a great idea... but they ran directly into the middle class, and that only lasted long enough to hit the books before legislators lost their seats and the bill was repealed.

When the market is truly looked at. If tourism businesses - service businesses - can not afford reasonably priced help... they go under. As each one goes under it puts pressure on the others to take up the customer demand until the price of labor inflates to the point that the tourists avoid the area.

Then the housing prices start to crash back down to earth.

Compromise
 

I love perspective!

It gives towns legislative rights they do not currently have (but it is true they could legislate it on their own). I guess if you look at it that way you are correct that the town gets nothing (that they couldn't do themselves)

Guess what? If allowed to look at the other side of the compromise, the homeowner also retains a right that they also currently have.

Instead of taking anyone's rights away, it preserves the rights of both parties. What a concept!

I know I know it doesn't have a winner and loser:

And you're welcome!

compromise
[ˈkämprəˌmīz]
NOUN
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
"an ability to listen to two sides in a dispute, and devise a compromise acceptable to both" · [more]
synonyms:
agreement · understanding · settlement · terms · accommodation · [more]
VERB
settle a dispute by mutual concession.
"in the end we compromised and deferred the issue"
synonyms:
meet each other halfway · find the middle ground · come to terms · [more]
accept standards that are lower than is desirable.
"we were not prepared to compromise on safety"
synonyms:
change one's mind · give way · give in · yield · acquiesce · adapt · retract · do a U-turn · eat one's words · do an about-turn
bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior.
"situations in which his troops could be compromised"

Honestly,

If there is a win-win where everybody feels like they didn't get exactly what they wanted, but they can live with it, then it's the best thing to do.

If I am offending people by applauding an action to preserve everybody's rights instead of taking them away, then I sincerely apologize.

I would like to reiterate that the People of Gilford should get what the majority wants - whichever way it goes.

Don’t worry Cal. It’s impossible for anyone to offend someone else. It’s passive not active. A person has to feel offended internally. That’s their choice, and not the fault of any speaker/writer.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Actually the homeowner did not currently have the right.
We do not have the right do with our property as we want; that is what the purpose of zoning is... and why those properties are zoned residential.

If Conway, Meredith, Laconia, Gilford... etc wanted to, they could either rezone an area, or allow a zoning variance.

Like I stated, not the first time we've seen the cycle. It is a tourism problem that they never seem to overcome... always running hot then cold then hot again.

This is a great point. There is definitely some number of rentals per year that makes a property a business instead of the AirBnB marketing ploy of "sharing economy".

Actually for us it was always the area.
Laconia would be Lake Winnisquam - I think a couple exist in the Eastman Drive area, or Weirs Beach. Weirs Beach, I believe is largely already zoned resort/commercial in most of its area.

For Gilford, that would be Glendale and Gunstock - though probably not zoned that way as Gilford has dealt with zoning far less than Laconia.

These are tourist areas that the municipalities hoped would support hotel/motel operations.
Problem is, as an investor with that mindset, I would more likely go for a property that cost less capital than a hotel/motel to get started. Develop the property for the greatest return on capital... and if working well... buy into the next property as economy of scale would begin to take over.

The recent tourism report has the State hovering around $6 billion, most of that occurring in the summer months. So it does bode that the lakes would be a sizable factor along with the seacoast.

There have been some really interesting discussions on this recently. The Senate Bill referenced above does one single thing: removes the prerogative of localities to decide what is best for them: ban or approve STRs. Instead STRs will be legitimized everywhere.

In Gilford there are 2 open questions:

1) Should STRs be allowed in residential zones

New Hampshire Municipal Association makes a strong case the in an area like Gilford, under current zoning, they are not allowed - https://www.nh.gov/osi/planning/reso...oryT_pOnYvpDl4

A close reading of Gilford zoning ordinances seems to conform to this reasoning.

However currently, in practice, STRs exist in Gilford and the town takes no action against them.

then

2) If STRs are allowed, should they be regulated?

Which is what the proposed ordinance would do.


This is creating a very confusing position where some people are advocating against the ordinance because they don't want their STRs regulated by the town, and other people are also advocating against the ordinance because they don't want STRs legitimized... quite a pickle!

Regulations Delayed
 

The short therm rental regulations proposed in Gilford will be studied further.

Any implementation will be at least one year away.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...f7a80ef96.html

Draft
 

Here is a draft of the STR ordinance: https://www.gilfordnh.org/file/2427/..._final_PDF.pdf

It looks very much like what the State of NH is trying to put in place state-wide.
Looks like that first inspection, septic system inspection, fire and safety issues, ability to remove rubbish, etc... put a pretty healthy burden on the permit applicant.

It also states explicitly that there are a number of infractions that will cause the permit to be revoked. The infractions seem reasonable as well.

I agree with Stevengilford. Some on this forum will read it and say this amounts to absolutely nothing (some already have!). Others will say if this is truly and competently enforced, that it should do the trick, and that's "Their read".

History tells us it does not work.

Not accurate on people calling this absolutely nothing--we called the state allowing towns to do what towns already have the right to do, absolutely nothing.

But focusing on the issues--this looks pretty good for what's in the document, but without knowing Gilford's definition of noise, as referenced in the link, it's hard to know if this is meaningful. I hope others know the answer here.

One other thing I infer from the document and some comments above--the issue is not small homes renting to a single family of four, for example. It's mid-size or larger homes with groups of adults having vacation fun night after night. Understandable

The nature of the beast is to get around restrictions.
It is one of the things that capitalism does very well given time.

Circumventing becomes a sport at this point:

“Sorry, we no longer do weekly rentals to multiple families in the same house. If you’re going to rent this place, it’s very important that you book at least 1 month and that you are all the same family. I can only take payment from one of you.

(But feel free to collect $ from your friends,er, I mean family and you can check out a 3 weeks early with no penalty ;)

PS: We have a car you can borrow. It gives the neighborhood a more permanent look. The neighbors like the appearance of less turnover. Enjoy your whole summer, er, week long vacation!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

three strikes permit?
 

If the permit rules say "three strikes and you lose the permit", can I just complain about my neighbor three times and he's out of business? Of course, the Selectmen can hold a hearing, but they are a non-judicial body, and getting on their schedule may take weeks. This sort of plan needs a lot of thought and can easily get way too complicated. And the PD doesn't want to be in a position of deciding which party is TOO rowdy, and which is OK.

I do have a friend in another part of the state who rents his own home occasionally. It is quite large and has significant land. The town rules limit the total number of people allowed on site for any reason. No events, no weddings, no fireworks, etc. It's pretty easy for the property host to count heads. If you rent Sunday to Saturday, there are no Saturday parties.

I think the Newspaper article does a great job of describing the issue and has a fair analysis of both sides of it.....

It doesn't rely on assumptions like "only non-residents do it" I suspect that's not the case. "They are already violating the zoning" when the document provided only says to check your own town ordinances to find that out - and no one has provided any Town ordinance that shows this is true in Gilford. And so on, and so on......

If this waits until the end of the year, and the State enacts essentially the same law mid-year, this might be a good way to spell-out Gilford's control of these rentals. Whatever it looks like in the end will, if nothing else, be spelled out and everybody can work from the same playbook...

Some have said that enforcement of all of this after the dust settles may-well be an issue and I agree. You full-timers would know your own police better than anybody. This is going to be the key to whether or not everyone can live with all of this harmoniously. I know nothing about the Law enforcement in Gilford but have no reason to believe that they can't pull it off. I hope so, anyway. They not only have to exercise discretion for small violations, but they should also not hesitate to revoke the permit for repeat offenders...

Thanks to all. This has been a very informative discussion....

You don't seem to understand what a ''resident'' is.
I am a resident of the State, but not a resident of Gilford.

The threat to elected officials are those that represent the residents of each specific district; and the threat of a lost election does not bother elected officials that do not intend to seek re-election.

And if you read local papers and expressed opinions, facing that electorate is a no-win situation on this issue.
The economy will self-adjust, but maybe not in the way that many think it will. We find that to be the outcome more often than not.

I was only indicating that the blanket statement that primary-home residents don't offer their property for STR is just not so. It is the base assumption offered by others that everything else flows from. There are as may different owner situations as there are places to rent. Like Descant, I know someone who rents out their primary residence - of a house in a town they are RESIDENTS of.

Just pointing out that all of this isn't just a money-maker for out-of-towners. In some cases it helps people meet their living needs. And as long as the housing prices keep rising, taxes keep going-up and "ahem" some of us are getting older, the STR thing becomes an option for some to retain their homes on the most beautiful place in the world.

Those of us that live here full-time are lucky. To give up the place you love because your fixed income can no longer support your home is hard. It is a privilege to live where we live. If I ever get to that place where i am living on the edge of affordability, I would look at the option myself. I don't want to leave here...

Correct
 

We lived in upstate NY near Saratoga and there were many people in the town that would rent their home during the 8 week racing session in Jul and Aug, often to the same people year in and year out. They made enough in rental fees to pay their annual property taxes and the cost of their rental wherever it was.
I do agree most homeowners do not rent their primary residence for short term rentals, never say never.

Dave

Primary home people do rent their homes for STR... some for rooms... like an actual B&B. But more as a LTR.
Some homeowners would rent their home out to escape Bike Week, but those were almost always in the areas that a zoned commercial/resort, or similar, that I previously spoke of.
These are not in any danger of local regulation. In fact, these are why local regulations are so hard to tailor. The State of NH wouldn't need any new legislation to protect those.

I respect your opinion, but even when offered as a fact (without support), it is an opinion. You may not think so, but there are homeowners with primary residences that rent their homes as a room, some rent LTR, and some as STRs. This is a fact even if it doesn't fit your narrative.

BTW the guy 5 houses away from me (his primary residence, but he has a second home) Rents STR for only 2 weeks each Summer. It's a nice set-up with a dock and 5 BRs. People bring their own watercraft, and they use the on-property paddleboards and kayaks (which scares me from a liability insurance issue, but that's off-topic). He gets an incredible $12,800 a week. It more than pays his taxes and insurance, and he gets to enjoy his home the rest of the year. Yes, people like this exist. Again, there are as many STR situations as there are rentals to choose on AirBNB and VRBO. There are no absolute descriptions.

I stated that some primary homeowners do rent rooms as STR, but more as LTR.
That is simply a fact of the market.

Homeowners can take on roommates just as easily as someone renting a home without a no sublet agreement can take on a roommate.

My narrative is that all these things have been happening in this are for at least the last five and a half decades that I've been alive; before there was ever any zoning, permitting, or even paying Meals & Room tax.

Something changed... and the narrative is that more of it is happening than before and something that was less perceived has now become more perceived. The government response has been steady steps toward waylaying the local outcry... and that is also fact that can be determined by the slow steady progression of the rules/regulation/taxation.

And the political fallout from that slow progression...

In regard to the Conway lawsuit, the judge had ruled in favor of the rental owners.
STRs are not a violation of the Conway zoning.

Zoning is fluid. The wording that exists today can be amended.

Each municipality is going to have to decide the fate of its commercial motel/hotel/B&B operations.

Laconia, for the most part, has already taken the hit... most of them in the Weirs section are gone. I think they only have the Naswa and Margate?

Meredith and Gilford are the ones that have to make the big decision.
It is why I think that Rusty was lucky to sell Church Landing, and shouldn't invest in the Gunstock project. Church Landing is taxes to Meredith, and the Gunstock project is taxes to Gilford; but I don't see the ROI for the investors that is worth the risk.

And:

The Lazy E

Channel Cottages

The Half Moon

Lake Winnipesaukee Motel

Sun Valley Cottages

The Summit

Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages

Thanks for the correction... it was sort of why I had the question mark.

I know we have some big jobs for the Weirs section, and I think that they may have the option of STR for them. They seem very modern functional; which is different than the designs that I get requested to do for most primary home owners.

The motels in the weirs went condo because of the amount of money the former motel owner can make selling them as Condos, it had nothing to do with people buying them to rent them as airbnb. Surely that's not what you are saying.

Rental Bill Changes
 

The State Senate had a hearing on January 25th on the bill regarding short term rentals submitted by Senator Harold French. At the hearing, Senator French offered amendments to the bill.

Senator French has done some good things and is very responsive to input from Citizens. He seems to be a real "common sense" guy.

I asked him to submit legislation a couple of years ago and he was receptive and interested. He made some suggestions about the language, attended the hearings and testified for the bill, and the bill was passed.

Back to the subject at hand: The short term rental bill amendment would allow communities to adopt ordinances to have an inspection of the premises to ensure it meets minimum housing standards.

From The Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...98503b1ba.html

People don't move from an STR like a motel, to go back to an STR in most cases.
Motels close for various reasons... retirement of the owners and no one willing to take over the business, etc. But competition plays a role, at a certain point an STR regardless of type may not be able to compete with another STR regardless of type... the market moves. Changing a property to another format is always an option; but that would be because the motel wasn't as profitable against the competition which held the profits down.

If someone would have told me three years ago that black/black windows would be the hot item in my line of work - I would laughed so hard I would need a doctor. Currently, it is rare that the customer is not looking for black/black windows. The companies that do black/black well... with the right price point... they are doing very well. Three years from now what will be the demand... I have no idea... but the same can be stated for STR, condos, or really any market segment.

As the market moves, the companies that do it best survive and prosper, those that don't... tend to die a death one way or the other.

Disagree. I bought a motel to condo conversion in 1980 specifically for STR. Many of the other buyers at the time did the same. Yes, the owners wanted to retire and move, and, as with many other Weirs motels, to continue running it as a "modern" motel would have cost a lot more than they, or a business buyer, could make back in a few years. Some of my first tenants were people who had rented from the motel in the past. They looked around and decided that motels weren't going to be around for long and bought conversions as well. Used it for a few weeks and rent the rest of the time. The catch was, Gunstock had no snowmaking then and also that year, no natural snow. Nobody wanted to rent winter short term. In a couple of years, the price doubled, so I sold it. Prices have continued to climb and I believe many of those units are STR because people have mortgages and much higher taxes.

Cherry Valley?
I know Cedar Lodge went condo so the owners could recapture capital, and it is still STR... but I didn't know there were others. I thought most went timeshare.

I don't doubt your situation, however, it has been talked about on here at length about how the motels of the weirs going condo negatively impacted area businesses because of the lower utilization rates of condo owners vs motel renters. Now that Short term rentals are being discussed in a negative way, you are suggesting and twisting it in way that people sold their motels as condos so people could rerent them on VRBO. And that somehow the VRBO rental in a former motel is somehow worse since gunstock now makes snow. That is downright comical and just shows the internet never fails that someone can twist anything to serve their opinion.

A judge just denied the attempt in North Conway to ban short-term rentals that are not owner-occupied. Just came across WMUR.

Hi Codeman. I posted that already, (post 69). WMUR must be a little behind.

I would state that some surmised that the motels going condo hurt local business more from the fact that the condos generally provide a means to prepare a meal without dining out. It really does not seem to be the situation. Some restaurants have struggled and closed, while others seem to thrive through the changes.

Interesting point. Maybe the kitchens in the condos are balanced out by the people in the condos having more disposable income?

Different businesses
 

Yes, many of the small family businesses from post war are gone because those folks wanted to retire just like motel owners. But look what the condos are supporting at McIntire Circle: A super Wal Mart and two other huge supermarkets, Lowe's, and countless other businesses. I don't believe a population of less than 8,000 supports all that business. Yes, some come from Laconia where the STR issue is similar.

People that rent short term rather than long term do not eat more food.
That area had a Gerrity Lumber, Star Market and K Mart for decades.

I would doubt the people in the condos have more disposable income than the ones in the motels; but its always plausible. I think on a ''per head'' basis, the condo rental may be cheaper than the motel... or provide more amenities like the kitchen that can offset a higher cost. The market has so many variables, it is hard to determine.

I remember Grossman's, not Gerrity. Did one replace the other? My speculation is that condo owners and those who rent them, are more apt to rent/stay for a week whereas motels of the day were more apt to have folks stay for a weekend. When I worked at a local restaurant as a teenager, the weekend traffic was significantly greater than mid-week.

Gerrity was where Middleton is now in Meredith. Grossman's was near where Lowe's is now.

Sorry, that would be correct... Grossman's.
The lot is actually to the side and outback... last I knew Home Depot had purchased it... but that was over seven years ago.

My point that a much smaller resident population still supported these types of businesses. If I remember correctly Hannaford was Big Banana and the Globe next to it, and I still do not know what became of the old Mart, because I don't travel that way often.

I would surmise the same that both are STR, but a condo rental is... or at least was... longer - more like the two week time share options that existed.
But if the motel room turns over and has the same occupancy... it really should be the motel patrons that would have a greater amount of money to unload in a shorter period. If I am only a day or two in an area... the process of grocery shopping and preparing a meal is rather bothersome than just dining out for all three meals.

I think the Big Banana was where Shaws is now.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

That may be a Shaw's at the circle... like I said, I really don't travel down that way anymore than I have to.

My memories
 

Grossman's was near Gilford Lowes, probably more correct to say behind the CVS right at "McIntyre Circle" traffic lights. Well after Grossman's closed, I thought Irwin's was using it for off-site boat storage. Dad loved Grossman's. He patronized them up here and down in MA.
The Big Banana I don't remember, but there was a restaurant called the Roadkill Cafe. Pretty good food and very colorful names for the food, as you can well imagine. It was located right where Shaw's is today.

Dave

That's where the Big Banana was too up. Leigh Turner ran the Roadkill do you remember him from school?

Big Banana, Roadkill, Red Barn
 

It's almost like some of these businesses were STR.
https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...cIntyre+Circle
BTW, the Mart moved across from the airport, where Tractor Supply is now.

Businesses have come and gone, but it generally isn't related to tourism.

The numbers that the State has put out for about the last decade were around $6 billion in economic activity from tourism, and anywhere from 75 to 85 percent being from residents of the State.

They see that in everything from snowmobiling on through... snowmobiling/OHRVs just give them a greater sense of the number because we don't have reciprocal registration; so the accounting is a little more accurate.

Oddly, they have public outcry in the STR (rentals) in that category also.

So more long term residents to the area, regardless of having a kitchen, is really what supports these businesses.

Same thing happens in our business... new build currently has control, but I still need to focus on the renovations/repairs that homeowners DYI... because the economy will slow, and they are the long term customer that keeps the business running; that is why I like the small old camps and cottages.

Can't Ban STRs
 

Here it is - passed by NH Legislature
Can't outlaw them
But you can Regulate the hell out of them


Short-term rentals
A bill to ban municipalities from enacting zoning that would prohibit short-term rentals passed on a voice vote. Proponents of SB 249 pointed to the economic importance of tourism in the state. Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka, a Portsmouth Democrat, spoke against the bill. Given the impact short-term rentals have on the price and availability of housing in the state, she said municipalities should be able to pass local regulations to address the issue in their own community.

https://newhampshirebulletin.com/202...5-2a5bf5694677

Docket seems to only be the NH Senate.
Nothing on the NH House or Governor.

And could be subject to repeal next session after the election if enacted.
So it still has a ways to go.

Will probably go in the end..

Maybe. But it is easier to get through the 24 Senators than it is the 400 House members.

Especially when it took three voice votes and an amendment to get through the Senate.

One voice vote - the only vote.

Love voice votes, means overwhelming "Yea"

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...2064&inflect=2

See the 3rdg... that means three readings.