Home › Island News › Local News
Committee gets feel for rental property dilemma
Public forum airs out concerns of frustrated neighbors, concerned rental owners
LESLIE WILLIAMS
Resident Roger Frederick details his run-ins with problem rental properties to the Rental Housing Advisory Committee Wednesday night. In addition to the 30 or so present residents, city councilors-elect Jerry Gibson, Frank Recker and Wayne Waldack were present. Recker, like many other citizens, pleaded with the committee to form some solid recommendations the City Council could enact to relieve residents who say their lives are being burdened by noisy, unruly short-term renters.
STORY TOOLS
RELATED STORIES
- Marco rental committee will have another ‘final’ meeting
- Rental committee holds final meeting Wednesday
- Marco rental committee may do about-face on registration
- Committee to recommend registration for rentals
- Marco rental committee seeks input
- Marco’s rental housing committee grapples with mission
- Rental committee set for inaugural meeting
Related Links
More Local News
- Alternative revenue sources may be answer to Marco's property tax shortfall
- Vacation for procreation returns to Marco Island
- Marco's Code Board gives stiff fines for repeat offenders
Share and Enjoy [?]
Marco Island’s newest city-sanctioned committee continues to inch its way toward an identity and mission, aided in part by a public forum Wednesday evening.
The forum, which was also the Rental Housing Advisory Committee’s second meeting, allowed residents to step forward with complaints, concerns and commiserations over the way to achieve a balance between the quiet life full-timers crave and the profitability of short-term rental properties.
Though some in the room, including one committee member, were clearly in favor of eliminating all rentals of less than 30 days, everyone was in agreement that at least some form of regulation was needed.
Many of the comments registered demonstrated resignation among residents living alongside problem properties.
“There are a number of people on this island who have sort of thrown in the towel and stopped reporting these nuisance situations,” said committee member Keith Dameron.
Wednesday’s forum was scheduled following an inaugural meeting in which the committee received reports from city staff, including Police Chief Roger Reinke. Reinke told the committee he had only a handful of rental properties that were reported as repeat offenders in 2007, determined by whether they were written up three times or more.
The forum’s purpose was to get a handle on how accurate a representation that was of the number of problematic rentals on the island.
Esther Karpman detailed to the committee her regular problems with a short-term rental across the canal from her home, where a rotating cast of vacationers raise a ruckus during every hour of the day. Karpman told the committee the home’s owner lives in Canada, and actually owns three homes on the same street, Taylor Court.
“It looks like a tenement house,” she lamented. “All of the dirty towels are hanging all over the back of the home.” Most residents simply pleaded with the committee to establish some guidelines police and code officers could enforce in order to keep the peace.
“I have no quarrel with people renting, provided we’ve got some regulations,” said Robert Burns, a resident since 1975 who described being wakened at 2 a.m. to the sounds of shouting revelers swimming in the canal behind his home.
Also represented were the part- and full-time residents who rent properties to short-term tenants on the island. Most agreed that regulation is necessary, but cautioned prudence and common sense.
“I believe a lot of people wouldn’t come here if they couldn’t come here for a week,” said property owner and landlord Paul Demos.
When committee member Karen Salvi asked Demos how he would suggest dealing with “slum landlords,” he conceded that some rental properties are problematic. He mentioned the controls he places on his own properties, including limiting the renters to seven people within a single family, bound by a rental agreement that states they must leave if they break the rules. He said he also communicates regularly with the neighbors and provides them with copies of the rental agreement so they can contact him if a renter gets out of line.
“I believe that there needs to be some general rules here,” he said. “The people here are not adhering to this. They’re not using common sense rules.” John Defalco, who testified to being both a rental owner and at other times a neighbor to problem properties, told the committee that he is “very conscious of what goes on in the house” because he is a resident himself.
“I am very concerned that we’ll overreact and impact my ability to rent,” he said. “We have to be careful what we pass.” City Councilor Chuck Kiester, the committee’s non-voting chair, cautioned the audience that the board is merely acting in an advisory capacity and could simply make recommendations to the City Council to pass.
Aside from occasional impassioned exchanges between residents with differing viewpoints, the meeting was an orderly forum, attended by about two-dozen residents not on the committee. At the meeting’s end, Kiester asked city staff to draw up a list of “possible loopholes” that were allowing problem rentals to get by without punishment.
“At the next meeting we’ll discuss those loopholes and how best to address them,” he said.
That meeting has been tentatively scheduled for March 12, with a loose plan to hold the sessions every other Wednesday. Check back with the Eagle to keep up with meeting times of the Rental Housing Advisory Committee.
Comments
This site does not necessarily agree with comments posted below — responsibility lies with the relevant reader alone. Read our privacy policy & user agreement.
The purpose of the meeting was to hear from residents that had inconsiderate neighbors seemingly limited to "short-term" rentals. Why were landlords allowed to speak in defense of short-term rentals? These speakers were allowed to fillibuster and interact with audience members and use up a significant amount of time that should have been used by residents with complaints. This privilege was also granted to one other landlord. One member of the committee constantly expressed confusion when a propety owner landlord stood to express a desire for regulation. He thought landlords were hypocritical to express such an opinion. Why? Do not Landlords who live in a single family home also have a right to a peaceful nights sleep? Karen Salvi was clearly a minority member. The real news here, which was not reported, is that Councilman elect Frank Recker spoke in favor of regulation and expressed concern for single family homeonwners who must endure abuse . He received applause for his position. Kudos to you Councilman Recker. His position raised the hairs on the necks of pro-business backer Monty Lazerus, Mr. Dumas and several members of the real estate community on the committee. Did Monty back the wrong horse?
#1 Posted by Fossil on February 28, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this the same Dumas who wanted to anchor his party boat anywhere he pleased in our Bays and Canals ? Now he wants to rent houses to drunken partiers ? Better do as he says or The Yacht Club and SAMI will sue.
Kiesters went out for Snook and it looks like he got a Shark on his line. Hey Chuck, you don't have the money or the base anymore to pull off a Trotter. Maybe you should keep your head down and take cover a few months.
Oliverio for Mayor ?
#2 Posted by OldMarcoMan on February 28, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rules, regulation AND ENFORCEMENT are the keys to successfully dealing with this problem. It seems that if the Police were called more than one time to a residence or by more than one neighbor, then the landlord should be cited and fined for not having done their homework on the rental. Laziness and greed are the issues here.
Ed Issler
#3 Posted by lauralbi1 on February 28, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fossil: I think Mr. Recker has it right when he says that regulation is the answer. You will note that he did NOT say eliminating short term rentals was the answer.
Based on your response above, I think it was probably you that backed the "wrong horse" and not Mr. Lazarus. Mr. Recker always campaigned as an honest, civic, positive, conscientious candidate and yet you did not vote for him, you voted for the slate that had nothing to offer Marco for their future.
Ed Issler
#4 Posted by lauralbi1 on February 28, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Issler, you are a fool. I support Mr. Recker and I applauded his efforts for our resedients at the meeting. I observed Mr. Lazarus shaking his head in disapproval of Mr. Recker while Mr. Recker was speaking. I do not believe anyone at the meeting advocated eliminating short-term rentals. You remind of the commercial in which the geko is carrying on a conversation with a jelly fish. The geko tells the jelly fish that it is difficult communicating with him because he cannot identify his face. I'm having the same problem communicating with you Mr. Issler. Is your face located where your other end usually is?
#5 Posted by Fossil on February 28, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I assumed incorrectly, then an apology is in order. I apologize. Glad to hear that you are in the land of the positive and in the land of those that support a positive future for our Island. There is no need to get personal in these blogs.
Ed Issler
#6 Posted by lauralbi1 on February 28, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a bunch of old busybodies you all are. A total minority is trying to change the rules for everybody. Lighten up, get a life, and mind your own buisness. Sorry, but it's the truth.
#7 Posted by sunnycity on February 29, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SUNNYCITY: The people who are seeking change are not minorities in the neighborhoods they live in. Laws and regulations are written to control the members of our society that never learned how to behave. Fortunately for civilization they are the minority.
#8 Posted by Hawke1 on March 2, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whilst I can understand the frustration of residents who have experienced noisey renters it would seem that this is not a wide spread problem.If I read the article about the last meeting correctly only 24 or there about residents attended and I presume most of these were couples.Don,t get me wrong I do believe there is an answer to the problem and someone should be made to stand acountable if a problem arises.I just cannot see making a 30 day minimum rental period being the way forward and as i,ve said before in my opinion this would only result in people choosing another vacation spot.Surely the economic situation of Marco is fragile enough without trying to make it worse.There must be another way to resolve this problem.
#9 Posted by jaguar on March 3, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post your comment
(Requires free registration.)