Posted: 21 Sep 2010 08:45 AM PDT

Getting a short-term rental in Paris can help travelers get a more authentic experience.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Renting a short-term apartment in cities like Paris and New York City can cut back expenses
Though some cities have passed laws prohibiting short-term rentals, renters face no penalty
Even with new laws, short-term vacation rental inquiries in New York City increased

(Budget Travel) -- For years, Budget Travel has been advising readers to rent short-term apartments whenever they plan to spend more than a few days in expensive cities like Paris and New York.

Short-term apartment rentals can help travelers save money on both lodging and meals, while providing a more authentic experience.

Regardless of recent headlines concerning new rules -- or supposed new efforts to enforce old rules -- for short-term rentals, we still endorse the option as a smart, fun and safe way to stay. While there may be new implications for owners seeking to rent out their properties in these cities, renters themselves face no possibility of fines or problems of any kind with the local authorities.

"There's nothing illegal that the traveler is doing when staying in a vacation rental," says Carl Shepherd, chief development officer of direct-from-owner rental specialist HomeAway. "None of these cities have any penalties for renters."

The announcements of lawmakers and housing officials seem to imply otherwise, hinting that because some home owners may technically be violating unenforced local ordinances by renting out their properties, renters are somehow guilty by association.

The truth is that based on years of precedent -- and the fact that restrictions are vaguely worded and that the municipalities involved are uninterested or incapable of enforcing them -- the risks encountered by renters are extremely minimal.

So fear not. Arm yourself with our 6 tips for safer, smarter rentals, and read on for specific advice about Paris, San Francisco and New York.

Budget Travel: World's weirdest hotels

PARIS

Here's the deal: Late last year, city officials started to enforce a 2005 law that restricts owners from renting their properties for periods of less than one year. Citing a lack of affordable housing in the central city -- always a popular topic among voters, and, yes, this began in a run-up to elections -- Mayor Bertrand Delanoë ordered a local housing agency to warn some of the estimated 38,000 offenders that they were violating the law by renting flats for shorter spans.

How many warning letters did the housing authority send out? As of midsummer 2010, about 25.

"For the moment," says one property owner who prefers to remain anonymous, "any enforcement of this law is minimal to the point of being invisible."

If enforcement efforts are ever ramped up substantially, short-term rentals could be harder to come by in Paris. Even though no owners have been hit with the maximum €25,000 (more than $32,000) fine for violating housing regulations, the possibility of such a fine will probably be enough to turn some short-term listings into long-term rentals.

Bottom line: In Paris, there has been no noticeable drop-off in owners posting short-term apartment rentals. At last check, homeaway.com listed an all-time high of 1,605 properties in Paris.

Budget Travel: The coolest small towns in America

SAN FRANCISCO

Here's the deal: San Francisco's obscure, long-ignored law prohibiting rentals of less than 30 days is nearly 30 years old, but few people thought about it until news arose about crackdowns on tourist rentals in other cities.

Rather than inquire as to the legality of such rentals, the city has traditionally preferred to subject owners to the local 14 percent hotel tax, bringing in millions annually that would not have been raised had the properties been occupied year-round by owners or long-term renters

For the sake of the city budget, there's an obvious incentive to keep ignoring the ordinance.

NEW YORK CITY

Here's the deal: Of the trio of cities, New York is the only one to actually pass new rental legislation.

As in Paris and San Francisco, the primary target is not the small-time owner who rents out a place from time to time. Instead, the focus is on "illegal hotel" operations: large-scale attempts to convert residential apartments intended for permanent occupants into travel accommodations.

So how will the law be enforced, and exactly what rental scenarios will be deemed illegal when the rules become effective as of May 1, 2011? No one's entirely sure.

Budget Travel: Confessions of... A Disney cast member

State Assembly Member Richard Gottfried, the cosponsor of the bill, was quoted as saying, "Somebody who is going away on vacation and once in a blue moon rents the apartment is probably not going to be affected by this."

Probably. That's right: Even the bill's cosponsor can't say exactly how the law will play out.

Nominally, the purpose behind the legislation is to provide more affordable housing for city residents and to protect travelers from sketchy quasi hotels. But the law might not have become a reality had it not been for the lobbying of hotel and motel associations -- which obviously compete with vacation rentals, and which would obviously benefit if travelers turned away from short-term rentals en masse.

Among all the confusion and uncertainty, one thing is clear: Travelers want their vacation rentals.

In the second quarter of this year, HomeAway recorded a 104 percent increase in inquiries for New York City apartments compared with the same period in 2009.

Budget Travel's Meg Zimbeck contributed to this report.

Get the best travel deals and tips emailed to you FREE - CLICK HERE!

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

Bizline: A growing vacation rental company

Posted: 20 Sep 2010 11:10 PM PDT

Q: What type of business do you operate — what do you sell, or what service do you provide?

A: Rocky Mountain Vacation Rentals, who prides themselves on being friendly, knowledgeable locals, currently provides vacation rentals, concierge services and specializes in resort and fractional real estate sales within the Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Keystone, Aspen, Snowmass, and Denver areas. Destinations include: Telluride, Steamboat Springs, Winter Park, Crested Butte, Durango, Jackson Hole, Park City, Lake Tahoe, Mammoth, Big Sky/Moonlight Basin, Banff and Whistler/BC.

Q: Where are you from, and why did you decide to open your business in Summit County?

A: Originally from Pittsburgh, Tommy moved to Vail with his family in 1999. After experience in the property management industry in the Vail Valley, offering lodging in Summit County was a natural progression to offer a different product to all new and existing clients.

Q: What experience do you have in this field?

A: Tommy has over 10 years of owning, managing, renting and re-selling properties in the Vail Valley specifically. Tommy has had his RE license active for 35 years now, dating back to his early RE experience in Florida in the mid 1970s.

Q: What sets your business apart from other similar businesses?

A: Our tagline: "Friendly. Knowledgeable. Locals." — accompanied with our business model which includes online booking for vacation rental properties, complimentary concierge services and real estate sales not only in Summit County, but throughout all of the major North America ski destinations. This allows us to provide the widest variety of lodging in the Rocky Mountains and the best customer service in the industry.

Q: What types of customers do you hope to reach in Summit County?

A: We are looking for anyone who loves the Rocky Mountains and visits this area regularly. We want our passion for this area to be utilized for those who are equally as passionate but from outside locations.

Q: Why did you choose to open where you did?

A: We love the mountains and our clients love the mountains. This concept only works if we are local to the area, not another big company who may be located elsewhere.

Q: What are your plans for your company's future?

A: Our plans are to offer our service for vacation rentals, concierge services and real estate sales in the 36 major ski resort destinations by 2012/2013 winter.

BLNR to decide fate of Ha‘ena vacation rentals

Posted: 21 Sep 2010 12:24 AM PDT

LIHU'E — Several Ha'ena landowners who received permits to build their dream homes signed an agreement long ago stating that no commercial activity would take place there.

Now, they have hired a lawyer to convince the state to change the condition.

"The owners feel that the condition is unreasonable," said attorney Roy Vitousek, representing the owners.

The state Board of Land and Natural Resources is scheduled to take public comments and potentially make a final decision Oct. 28 in Honolulu on whether landowners who own homes in Ha'ena's conservation district can legally rent their properties.

On Sept. 10, 2007, 14 Ha'ena homeowners petitioned the BLNR to deviate from a condition in the Conservation District Use Permit, according to a report signed by Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Administrator Samuel Lemmo.

Hawai'i Revised Statutes state that anyone who wants to undertake a land use on conservation district land has to obtain a permit. This applies to anyone who wants to build a home on those lands.

Each of the permits was issued and accepted, some as far as 40 years ago, on various conditions and minor variations in language. All permits included a condition that the single-family residence would not be used for rental purposes.

Some owners, however, by their own admission, rented their properties for short-term vacations, Lemmo's report states.

"Some were doing so for decades. Other owners would like to do so," he says in the report.

The department notified in writing the owners who were allegedly in violation to stop renting or be subject to fines and penalties.

Petition to deviate

Stuck between "their prohibited but lucrative rental activity and facing an enforcement action that could result in stiff fines," the owners filed a petition for deviation, asking the BLNR to change the conditions and restrictions.

The BLNR considered the petition at its meetings on Oct. 26, 2007, and Dec. 14, 2007, but denied their request.

The owners subsequently asked for a contested case, but DLNR Chair Laura Thielen denied it on Jan. 14, 2008.

Thielen wrote in that document that "most of the landowners and counsel for the landowners have admitted to the alleged, unauthorized vacation rental activity."

To approve the petition for deviation would circumvent Hawai'i Administrative Rules, which states that "failure to secure board approval for a deviation before such deviation occurs constitutes cause for permit revocation," Thielen's report states.

In other words, no permit for after-the-fact deviations shall be granted.

Vitousek said he was aware of this regulation.

"But in order to find that they are in violation of the condition, the department has to initiate an enforcement action that has to prove that they have been in violation of the condition, and they have never done that," he said.

Vitousek denied the claim that the owners admitted renting their properties. "It has become part of the mythology," he said.

The owners then sued the BLNR, but Judge Kathleen Watanabe agreed that a contested case was not required.

With their options about to expire, the owners took the issue to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which ruled that the BLNR — not the department chair — must make the decision whether to hold a contested case.

"Basically the owners' objective is to try to get the department to deal with the fact that the regulation as written is vague and unreasonable," said Vitousek, adding that the owners are asking the department to remove the condition or be specific about what is permitted.

Under that condition, if someone got called for military service, they couldn't have their brother stay in the house and pay for the mortgage, Vitousek said.

"Under the DLNR broad definition of rental that would be illegal, and they would lose their home," he said.

Vitousek said some of the owners have been paying taxes for many years. A lot of those owners are island residents who use those homes for vacation.

"It would be really helpful for them if they could rent it for some period of time, and get some money to help them pay their taxes and upkeep," Vitousek said.

Lemmo, who was on the case three years ago, said he was hesitant to comment on details because he hadn't thought about it for awhile.

He said in certain instances the chair has the authority to make decisions for the board, such as in shoreline certification cases.

"It just depends on a particular issue," said Lemmo, explaining that there is no common standard for all cases because "statutes and rules come into play."

Vitousek said that in appeals for shoreline and burial council decisions, there are regulations that authorize the chair to make decisions.

"In this particular area there's no regulation that authorizes the chair to make a particular decision," he said.

Decision on O'ahu

The issue will be taken up by the BLNR next month in Honolulu.

Board member Ron Agor, who represents Kaua'i, said he had been anticipating it to be on the agenda.

"I have been an advocate for vacation rentals," he said. "For the life of me, I can't see how vacation rentals are detrimental to the community and the environment."

Agor said most vacation rentals are well kept and owners pay "big taxes," despite using the facilities "maybe 50 percent of the time."

Agor, however, had reservations on this issue because those residences are on conservation lands.

"These people signed an agreement not to use it as a commercial facility," he said.

The BLNR's decision to ask the owners to cease and desist was proper because the agreement was signed, according to Agor. In other areas of the county where officials tried to curtail vacation rentals, owners did not sign an agreement prior to build their homes.

Based on current rules, Agor said the BLNR should not approve the deviation. Such a change would be improper, he said.

The only alternative that Agor saw for those owners would be to go through a lengthy process to try to take that particular property out of the conservation district.

A Sept. 9, 2010, DLNR document identifies the following as the properties in question: Mark Moran et al; Edwin Cryer et al; Murcia-Toro, Inc. et al; Barbara Baker et al; Gary Stice et al; Caroline Simpson; Earl G. Bart Trust; Diane G. Faye Trust et al; Helferich Family Trust; James Greenan et al; and Ive Revocable Trust.

The document, signed by Lemmo, notes that this list stems from Vitousek's Sept. 10, 2007, petition for deviation from conditions and it is possible a few of the property owners no longer seek a contested case.

The public can send written testimony to Agor at agor@ronagor.com, to BLNR secretary Adaline Cummings at adaline.f.cummings@hawaii.gov, or to Thielen at laura.thielen@hawaii.gov.

Vacation Rentals

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

“Are vacation rentals still legit?” plus 2 more

“Are vacation rentals still legit?” plus 2 more

0 comments:

Post a Comment

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Popular Posts