This article is directed to the adults around here, people who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.
The issue is simple: Will the County Council protect the County’s neighborhoods and residential communities, as rightly expected by local citizens who actually live here full time, whose lives (and not just money) are invested in this special place, who pay local income taxes, and who vote here? Or will Council Members vote against local citizens and facilitate a new boom in “Airbnb” type rentals, feeding the financial interests of non-resident outside investors and a relative handful of (powerful) people who are positioned to benefit financially, notwithstanding the woe it brings to others?
That adage “FOLLOW THE MONEY” is the key yet again.
The County Council is being pressed to relax Short Term Vacation Rental (STR) regulations enacted just last year, when what’s really needed is to strengthen them. This issue is critically important to the future of our community in the long run, but today the only people who seem to be aware of the battle are (1) neighbors of existing STR properties and (2) the relative handful of people—maybe one- or two-hundred of 37,000 Talbot Countians—who stand to make the real, serious money from these arrangements.
Full disclosure: I personally have no dog in this fight. No STR property is yet (!) in my neighborhood, nor do I have any financial interests affected for better or worse by STRs. Indeed, I was hardly aware of the issue until last year’s election…but I’ve been following it pretty closely once I saw the impact an imminent boom in Airbnbs will bring to Talbot County. I am now an advocate for thoughtful regulation—not elimination–of STRs so we can have them but avoid harm to the folks who actually live here, brought about by exploitation of Talbot’s unique merits by outside investors and those who would milk that cow.
This brief commentary cannot delve into the many aspects of STR regulation. But I do want to stress one overarching idea to keep in mind as you read about STRs: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
The Council is being lobbied from two directions. On the one side is an informal group of full-time local residents who have been neighbors of STR properties for years. This amorphous group, with no resources, came together under the banner “Neighborhoods Are For Neighbors” when the zoning code was rewritten last year. They were less than happy with the regulations enacted at that time—the ones that might now be relaxed. (That displeasure in fact led to their participation in the successful effort to oust the Council President.)
On the other side is the newly created Talbot Vacation Advocates (“TVA”), described in their own introductory memo as “a group of concerned Short Term Rental (STR) homeowners, vacation rental companies, tourism businesses, and local professional groups.” While some current STR owners are on the list of members (more on that below), the named organizers—no surprise here—are four (4) vacation rental companies and the Mid-Shore Board of Realtors. Do you doubt TVA has access to resources to lobby this legislation?
These are the businesses that—along with the (almost invariably) out-of-County investors who buy properties for STR or Airbnb use—are the ones making significant money on these internet-enabled ventures. (The largest vaction rental firm behind TVA was recently acquired; it is now a subsidiary of a regional firm that simultaneously markets Airbnb type rentals in Ocean City, the Delaware Beaches, and North Myrtle Beach SC.)
To state the obvious, there is nothing whatever wrong with investing and with making money—I’ve done it myself, in real estate. An investors’ point of view is not somehow illegitimate. What is important is that everyone has their eyes open, and recognizes when self-interest lies behind arguments being advanced to influence public policy.
TVA states that its “aim [is] to partner with and assist the Talbot County Council in revisiting (and, where appropriate reasonably revising) STR regulations.” For me, “partner and assist” is particularly worrisome language given the financial and organizational support the real estate community advanced to some members of the Council in 2018—in fact, today’s majority on the Council.
That some current STR licensees have joined TVA is illogical, but understandable when one reads the scary–but untrue–promotional material TVA’s organizers have put out. It is illogical because the people who already have STR licenses and play by the rules are already in the catbird seat. A sudden boom of new STR properties will mean only more competition, pressure on prices and occupancy. But given TVA’s bald assertion—that “a large group will continue to argue to ban all STRs in Talbot County”—of course all 140 current licensees should rise up.
Having followed this closely for 15 months, read all comments submitted to the STRB, and attended most of their hearings over the summer, I can assure you that no one is advocating a “ban all STRs in Talbot County.” If owners adhere to the law and take reasonable efforts to assure their renters do too, then there is no risk of losing an existing license. (But understand, very few of the STR owners are local residents, and so must go on what they’re told by their rental agents…so, join TVA and send emails to the Council!)
TVA has organized a veritable onslaught of emails to the County Council in recent days pressing for relaxation of STR regulations, and they will have a very big turnout at a public work session at the Community Center’s Wye Room at 5PM on Wednesday night, December 18th. It’s an important moment for those who care about the character of Talbot County.
As you try to follow the merits of the STR debate, just remember: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
More to come….
Dan Watson is the former chair of Bipartisan Coalition For New Council Leadership and has lived in Talbot County for the last twenty-five years.
Don’t miss the latest! You can subscribe to The Talbot Spy‘s free Daily Intelligence Report here.
Robert Haase says
I fully agree with Mr.. Watson. I don’t want to eliminate Talbots STR’s but want to make sure they are safe and they do not disturb their neighbors. Also I believe they need to be limited, to many in an area will lower property values. Neighborhoods like Bentley Hay, Rio Vista, Cordova and other Villages need the same protection the Town of Easton and St. Michaels have in similar neighborhoods(which is where our Councilman live and are protected from STR’s) .
STR’s in the Towns are limited to Principle owners and are not allowed to be licensed by an investor. Principle owners are part of the neighborhood. They take care that renters do not disruptive to their neighbors and they care about maintaining property values. Everyone should realize STR’s are not limited to vacation rentals, a home in any of these mentioned neighborhoods could be used to house anybody for any reason at any cost the licensee can realize. Imagine a STR next to you that is used to house transients on a weekly basis just like a hotel and probably less expensive.
T. Yost says
This is a pretty delusional view of what is a very weak housing market – how much house flipping goes on in Talbot County? I have been to several STR review board hearings and the majority are part time residents looking to offset some of the costs on their second homes. These second home buyers are the only ones who have saved the Talbot economy from collapse. These second home buyers are spending money locally to employ caretakers, and contractors to maintain there properties. Those who keep saying they don’t want to eliminate STRs, just to restrict them are really just trying to make them prohibitively practical and really just want to control their neighbors property.
Robert Haase says
Most people who decide to buy a home in Talbot County came here for the life style which didn’t include the STR phenomenon, this new business has attracted buyers who really have no intention of becoming a part Talbots community and just want to cash in on what they see as a raising real estate market and now are realizing they have killed that market. All you need to do is look at that shortage in community involvement.
Dr. Anthony J. and Cynthia L. Calabro says
I would enjoy reading a few of the accurate non-biased studies that irrefutably prove that “these second home buyers are the only ones who have saved the Talbot economy from collapse”. Please publish them. That is a bold statement!
It also appears contradictory in that these “part time residents looking to offset the cost of their homes” are also saving the Talbot economy from collapse”. Really? They want to offset costs, yet they are spending ‘sufficient ‘ money to save the Talbot economy from collapse? Hmmmm…?
These “part time residents looking to offset some of the costs on their second homes”, then need to find a legal method of offsetting and NOT an illegal method of offsetting their costs. They should not offset by operating a business that does not conform with the zoning laws that were in existence when they purchased their “second home”. Prior to purchase, they should have been aware of the STR regulations, perhaps made aware by their licensed Realtor, their real estate agent, or their licensed lawyer. If they find that they cannot comfortably afford this second home, then they may need to hire a Realtor to help them sell it. Now that may raise the “house flipping rate’ which I guess will contradict the “very delusion view of the weak housing market”
And as you say, it is indeed a “home”, not a motel, an inn, a bed/breakfast or other overnight stay facility. A home. Residential is residential and business is business, which is why there are distinct zoning types.
Wait until a likely peril occurs- ( you choose the peril- e.g.- from a fire from a overnight-er not being familiar with a different stove or BBQ grill, or a toddler falling into the river or a tempting swimming pool, or an unsuspecting neighbor injuries a playing toddler backing out of their driveway where there has never been a toddler previously, or during the night someone slips down steps, or a bike accident on the supplied bicycle). Undoubtedly these part time homeowners will then TRY to file an insurance claim. Guess what. It is common understanding that homeowners’ insurances do not recognize STRs as an entity that is covered in the homeowners’ policies. And you can guess why…an STR usage is not a homeowner usage, thus violates the policy terms. STRs are a business and a business policy is required for coverage, not homeowners.
Thus, if the County does not require provisions for ‘special’ insurance for these STRs, and yet licenses them, you can bet the county will be sued…and because of their STR licensee requirement, may have culpability. The county approved the license yet did not require nor check for the proper valid insurances.
Culpability or not, the county will then be utilizing taxpayers’ money for the inevitable cost of defense. Yes, unbudgeted money for defense each time this occurs. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. And perils do and will occur.
The goal is not “to control neighbors property”, but to enforce the law/regulations.
The goal is not “to make them prohibitively practical”, but to use prudence and practicality.
The goal is to protect the overnight-ers with the sane requirements of other overnight facilities…fire/smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, appropriate and marked escape routes along with other reasonable safety measures, adequate insurances, and the collections of taxes weather they be sales tax, occupancy tax, etc.
The goal is to also protect the majority of Talbots residents.
The goal is to do the right thing, the proper thing.
Robert Jones says
Realtors see the potential STR homes when they are listed for sale before anyone else does, in their multiple listing services. They buy most of them, themselves, for STR operation or to flip them. I have been a Realtor and know many of them in the several cities in which I have lived. What Realtors want in the market is turnover. What they don’t want are people, especially seniors who are likely to stay 20-25 more years in their final home. It drives them nuts that Talbot County attracts so many seniors. STR buyers are largely speculators and the turnover of those houses far exceeds the median rate. If STR units drive out full-time resident owners due to their disruptive use and/or eroding of neighborly communities, ever better for Realtors because sales and commissions will follow. Realtors label everyone who sees what their motives are gets as “anti-business”. Well, in residential neighborhoods, that is not a bad thing to be. The unregulated STR business has nothing positive to contribute to residential communities.
Susan Peel says
Who exactly does the opening sentence target: and who does it exclude.
“This article is directed to the adults around here, people who didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.”
As an adult who has never been on a turnip truck, I nevertheless feel uncomfortable. Please clarify.
Dan Watson says
Sorry if that was confusing. Nothing literal of course; just using colloquial to stress that folks need to be clear-eyed, not gullible, when assessing arguments regarding STRs. Consider the self-interest at play from ALL sources.
DW
Dan Watson says
Some additional info: I wrote above that “TVA has organized a veritable onslaught of emails.” Well, in response to a PIA, this afternoon the County advised that they have received a total of eighty-two (82) emails on this topic, thru yesterday afternoon. This is quite possibly a record outpouring, all arriving after the STR Review Board (who is supposed to handle these matters) concluded its work.
DW
William McNair says
Of the 82 emails can you discern how many are from the TVA?
David Lloyd says
At the very, very least, the Council must give the recently-enacted STR rule time for it to be determined whether it is (a) being complied with and (b) is it working to the benefit of all residents. I would suggest at least 5 years for this to happen. If the folks promoting relaxation of the STR rule cannot wait, shame on them! Greed must not be allowed to rule here!
Monica Otte says
I agree with Mr. Lloyd that the STR rules must be given time to work. The Short Term Rental Review Board listened to citizen input and came up with proposals to improve the process for both residents and the STR industry. Everyone has a right to earn a living, but not at the expense of residents and neighbors.
Jodie Hardesty says
I’m sorry, but I had a difficult time getting past Watson’s statement that short-term rentals are merely “feeding the financial interests of non-resident outside investors and a relative handful of (powerful) people who are positioned to benefit financially, notwithstanding the woe it brings to others?” As a single mother who is working around the clock to provide for her family by working in an industry in Talbot County that offered more than $40,000/year salary (with a college degree and then some), I take issue with this.
Based on the statistics and data we have on hand, out of some 140 licensed short-term rentals in all of Talbot County, there have been less than five valid, registered complaints. The fear-mongering and harassment lodged by this opposition group is nothing short of class warfare.
Not only does my livelihood depend on tourism in Talbot County, but so does the livelihood of the housekeepers, landscapers, restaurant workers, and shopkeepers. Do we not deserve to live and thrive here because we rely on tourists visiting the place we also call home? Are the only people entitled to enjoy Talbot County those who have, for the most part, made their money elsewhere and decided to retire here?
We celebrate the great work of our Economic Development staff and we take pride in being named on national “best of” lists, but then we shut the doors on the accommodations being made available to people who want to see what we’re all about. The “concerned citizens” of Talbot County who are fighting against short-term rentals by pushing onerous regulations on them must be comfortable with giving up precious land to hotel chains instead of taking advantage of existing resources in the form of privately owned homes. Interesting.
I would suggest each and every member of this county take a good, broad view of what is happening here, and not get wrapped up in the false alarms of Mr. Watson, et al. It’s not the picture of greed he is painting.