Check out some similar questions!

parkerbenson · Sep 24, 2009, 07:00 PM

Hi,

The City of Miami Beach is considering banning all apartment/condo rentals without a minimum six month and one day lease in certain rental districts.

FL Statute 166.043 prohibits any City from passing any rule or ordinance that would "have the effect of" controlling rents.

Rental property is a form of interstate commerce, according to US Supreme Court.

Landlords and tenants generally write contracts depending on their needs and financial abilities.

The City may grandfather properties that currently rent without a six month lease.

Either way, can a City pass a law to require a written minimum lease - can they control private contracts like this?

Especially in a State that prohibits any form of rent control (any ordinance that would effect the price of rents) without a housing emergency and referendum, and whose Landlord Tenant Laws FS 83, part II, provide for month-month rental agreements and whose Tax laws tax such rentals (6 months or less)?

I can't find any other City that does this except for Cities that have rent control.:confused::mad:

twinkiedooter · Sep 24, 2009, 07:08 PM

How can Miami Beach even think of doing this? Florida is the land of transient renters who come for a few months and then go back North.

Miami Beach can't do that sort of prohibition as it would cause too much chaos and how are they going to go about enforcing such ridiculous laws? They can't.

ballengerb1 · Sep 24, 2009, 07:32 PM

Can they do it, sure they can and will likely get sued by many landlords and management companies. The outcome of the suit will determine if they have the right establish a minimum length lease. Most city charters specify their power, have you reviewed Miami's chapter? City of North Miami Beach, Florida -- North Miami Beach

parkerbenson · Sep 24, 2009, 07:41 PM

twinkiedooter, I agree. Miami beach charter doesn't really specify extent of their power, land use regulations are to be interpreted to minimum requirements for public health, safety, welfare, etc.. but a 6 month clause won't need to be interpreted. They passed same rule for single family neighborhoods, being sued now in federal court, but in rental districts, it seems insane.

ballengerb1 · Sep 24, 2009, 07:45 PM

Oh I agree with you two, this is nuts to me too, but as you see they have already made regs that brought them into court. Somewhere, somehoww they must have it in their heads that the folks who rent short term are a negative influence for the city.

parkerbenson · Sep 24, 2009, 08:15 PM

That's part of it, 'negative influence' being people who rent for a week or a month or a season and theoretically might disturb someone; other part is they are trying to protect hotels as a stated objective, which I think leads into anti-trust issues in theory. Actual noise complaints, etc. show no correlation between length of tenancy and behavior. Long-term renters bother people all the time.

parkerbenson · Sep 24, 2009, 08:16 PM

Others don't like month-month renters because they are more 'transient' and generally lower income.

ScottGem · Sep 25, 2009, 05:57 AM

First, the provision against rent control would likely not apply here. Rent control refers to the amount of rent charged per period. This rule would affect transience, not rent.

Second, I do not believe this law would stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The application of the law appears arbitrary. If it applies to only certain areas of the city, it would likely be discriminatory. It would seem to be against free commerce as well.

They might get away with requiring a minimum INITIAL lease of 6 months if they word the law correctly.

excon · Sep 25, 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by parkerbenson

Can City prohibit month-month rental agreements?

Hello parker:

I HATE legal questions that begin with the word "can". The underlying assumption being, that government leaders PAY ATTENTION to existing law when they make their decisions, and/or that they CARE whether their decisions are contrary to law... THAT assumption is just flat out wrong.

Therefore, the answer to MOST legal questions that begin with "can'', is no they can't.

The question that SHOULD have been asked, what do I DO when the city is violating my rights??

So, if you want to know THAT, we need to know what your interest is, Are you a tenant or a landlord? Did some agency DO something to you? Help us, help you.

excon

parkerbenson · Sep 25, 2009, 06:37 AM

When they passed the law last spring to prohibit single family home rentals in single family zones for less than six months they made the rental of a single family home for greater than 6 months an "accessory use":

Sec. 142-905. Permitted accessory uses in single-family districts.

(5) Leases of single-family homes to a family (as defined in section 114-1) for not less than six months and one day, including extensions for lesser periods of leases permitted under this subsection to original leaseholders.

parkerbenson · Sep 25, 2009, 06:43 AM

I'm a property owner who rents for less than six months. This law would also effect renters as they law is directed at the multi-family rental districts, not the hotel zones.

right now, to avoid issues, the city at least seems to be leaning towards "grandfathering" those of us who rent weekly, monthly, seasonally, or month to month. They didn't do that in single family zones so now they have a lawsuit in federal court.

that would be good for me personally, if that works out. We've developed a bit of good will with the City and they know we'll have to sue if they take 'our' rights.

what the rest of the property owners will do, those who don't get "grandfather rights" is anyone's guess. How it will impact property values, rental prices, vacancy rates, condo association documents/impairment of contracts, etc. if they don't grandfather any of us... we will all have to sue, what other choice do we have?

ScottGem · Sep 25, 2009, 06:55 AM

This is where a landlord association comes in. You pool your resources, hire an attorney to to create a class action, then ask people to join the class and contribute towards the legal costs.

I would also contact the time share operators. It would seem to me that they might be affected by this. Since essentially each owner is renting their property for usually a week.

excon · Sep 25, 2009, 07:19 AM

Hello again, P:

So, this is really an academic discussion then. Those who feel they've been damaged ARE taking action. Those who are DOING the damaging have been put on notice that they better stop.

Ain't noting more to do, unless you want to put your own butt on the line. If it was ME, I would, but I like to confront authority. If you're like me, rent your place, and when you appear in court for the violation you'll get, stand up for your rights. Maybe it'll be YOU who sets the precedent, and changes things.

But, you just want to pass some time. That's not what we do here.

excon

parkerbenson · Sep 25, 2009, 07:37 AM

Hopefully I'll be able to give you the final word in a few months as to what they do, and what we do. With regard to timeshare, ironically, Florida Law, very clearly articulated by a State Attorney General opinion, protects timeshare ownership in residential zones. In general under Florida law, cities cannot discriminate against forms of ownership in zoning laws; and, if condos are allowed in a zone, for example, timeshare ownership of condos is allowed. The result of this very well could be a boom in timeshare schemes.

Advisory Legal Opinion - Zoning/ownership of property on time-share basis

stevetcg · Sep 25, 2009, 01:55 PM

Many towns in Southern Cal do this too. Short term and long term rentals are taxed differently. This does have precedent and I wouldn't bet against it being legal.

parkerbenson · Sep 25, 2009, 08:02 PM

Thanks stevetcg, can you clarify? Towns in southern California ban month-month rentals? Is this under "rent control" ordinances or for other reasons? I've seen single family zones prohibit rentals less than 30 days, 90 days, and in some cases 6 months, some being challenged now in Court, but can't find precedents for multi-family rental property in multi-family districts that have stricter restrictions than 30 days (less than 30 days is transient in florida).

stevetcg · Sep 26, 2009, 05:17 AM

I don't recall the details but the short of it is that short term rentals were considered hotels for tax levies.

A quick Google turned up this small town example.

Dana Point considers regulating short-term vacation rentals | city, vacation, rentals, commission, beach - News - OCRegister.com

Additionally, when we moved here to Central Florida (Melbourne/Viera) we rented my brother's house that they had just put on the sales market. There was concern that if we were there under six months he was going to have tax considerations to deal with.

Im sorry that I don't have any more detail. Im not an expert on RE law... just something I've seen discussed before.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 26, 2009, 06:07 AM

The point is, that cities can pass ( and do pass) some very silly laws. Often first they can't be enforced normally but when they are, many are not actually legal. But they have to be challenged in court.

So after this is passed, the landlords or renters will have to sue in court to over turn the law.