Apparently, some members of the Marco Island City Council seem to have confused an issue that concerns short term rentals at private homes with regulated rentals at condominiums. Consequently, the City Council has drafted a proposed rental ordinance with a scope and complexity that far exceeds the regulation needed to solve the original problem. Although there may not be confirmed statistics on the number of complaints received concerning noise, litter and parking issues at some short term rental residences, many neighbors and police officers seem to agree that there is a problem. Perhaps an ordinance is needed to address those issues at single family residences, but there seems to be no need to include condominiums in the same ordinance. Condominiums, especially those that enforce minimum rental periods of 1 month or longer, already subject tenants to numerous rules and regulations controlling maximum occupancy, noise, parking, trash and general behavior.
Unless the proposed ordinance is substantially modified to exclude condominium properties that do not offer short term rentals, the City will be creating another unnecessary bureaucracy that will be targeting the wrong population. Perhaps condos that rent by the week or condotels that rent by the night need to be included with the short term rentals at private residences. However many condominiums, like my own, limit rentals to one month or more and already have pages and pages of rules and regulations concerning rentals which are strictly enforced by the management and the board of directors.
Some members of the City Council seem to believe that the condominiums are being given a way out of the proposed redundant regulation by the City via the “blanket registration” clause. Unfortunately, “blanket registration” is not the equivalent of “exclusion” and does little to benefit condominium associations. As currently written, “blanket registration” may make it a bit easier for condominium owners who rent their units, but shifts considerable liability and responsibility to the association, its board of directors and its management. Furthermore, it does not eliminate all of the unnecessary fees, does not eliminate redundant inspections (that are already required of condos) and does nothing to better enforce the condominium’s existing rules and regulations. City Councilors need to understand that most condominiums have rules and regulations far more comprehensive and stringent than those proposed in the ordinance. In essence, we are not the problem and do not need to be included in this ordinance.
Sandcastle II Condominium Association