In its Deed Restriction Clarifications insert to the April Newsletter, the Board accused neighbors engaging in dialogue on Nextdoor regarding the benefits and risks of the Proposed Deed Restrictions of engaging in "Social Media Conjecture". They have gone on to say that discussions regarding how these restrictions might be misapplied or abused in the future are "nothing more than fear tactics without any legitimate or logical basis." We beg to differ.
We believe considering how covenants that run with the land in perpetuity might be applied in the future is our responsibility as property owners. We believe the question is not whether a future board would use the restrictions differently than they are now intended, but whether they CAN. Restrictions should be written in a way that is clear, unambiguous, and NOT SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS. The Proposed Deed Restrictions have not been written that way.
That is why we are urging homeowners to understand how the restrictions could be applied if a future board elects to go with an alternative interpretation. We are not suggesting homeowners should be afraid. We are asking them to be prudent. The courts expect restrictions, like any contract, to be clear and unambiguous. Homeowners should demand the same or expect to bear the costs of litigation to determine exactly which interpretation is the "correct" interpretation. Ultimately, it will be neither the HOA nor the homeowner who will make that decision, it will be the court.
The Board has used our funds to present its reasoning and evidence in favor of implementing these Proposed Deed Restrictions and have made it clear that they believe homeowners should vote for them. Unlike the Board, we are not telling homeowners what they should or shouldn't do or vote or believe. We are asking that homeowners discuss the issues, seek out other perspectives, do their own research, consider seeking legal advice, and in the end, make a decision based on information and a careful consideration of both the benefits and the risks of implementing these restrictions. We believe good decisions are made by considering both sides, especially when making decisions that impact one another. Below we have gathered research we believe homeowners might find helpful in that process.
Home-sharing sites such as AirBnB appeared on the scene approximately one decade ago causing a dramatic shift in the lodging industry. While initial assumptions were that STRs would have a negative impact on property values, the handful of studies to date that have focused specifically on AirBnB rentals have found the opposite to be true - they have had a positive impact on property values. Likewise, there have been studies not on home-sharing sites in particular, but on restrictive occupancy covenants in general that indicate such covenants can cause a negative impact on property values. We urge homeowners to do their own research. Please do not accept blanket statements that these restrictions will improve property values. Ask for evidence to substantiate those assertions.
"In regards to excessive private land use controls, zoning must be taken into account to ensure that public zoning regulations coupled with private covenant regulations are not over burdensome to future homeowners. This burden can erase any positive property value impacts of community associations; or worse, generate a negative property value effect."
"Because of the Home Sharing Ordinances, homeowners lose, while renters tend to gain."
"We find that relative to not having covenants, the marginal benefits of covenants just equal the marginal costs within a zoning classification with relatively low land use restrictions. However, the net effect of covenant use is negative within the high restriction zone."
"Again, we believe home sharing increases market tightness both by decreasing the number of homes offered for rent, as units are shifted from the rental to the home sharing market, and by increasing the housing demanded as a result of the income opportunity offered by home sharing. "
"The results presented in this paper suggest that the increased ability to home-share has led to increases in both rental rates and house prices."
Comprehensive Study Showing the Impact of AirBnB STRs in New York City
"We find that in New York City, the impacts appear to be that an increase in localized Airbnb availability is associated with an increase in property values."
"While this form of ownership is plainly thriving, significant numbers of these communities have become hotbeds of litigation and acrimony."
"The precise impact that short-term rental restrictions have on property values will depend on various factors, including the general character of the community (e.g., vacation destination versus nondestination community), the precise terms of the ordinance, local and national economic conditions, and local real estate market conditions."
Texas Property Code Section 209.006, has been misquoted in private messages by Board members and in the Board's assurances regarding its protection in the Deed Restriction Clarifications insert included in the April Newsletter. Specifically, the Clarification states that:
"Any action the CP HOA could possibly take under the proposed deed restrictions updates regarding short term rentals is subject to Section 209.006 of the Texas Property Code."
By its terms, Section 209.006 ONLY applies to actions to suspend common area rights, file suit against an owner (except collection & foreclosure suits), or actions to assess fines or damage charges. Actions to evict tenants as attorneys-in-fact or actions to inquire into the occupants of a homeowner's Residence are not included in the notice requirements set out in this section.
We urge homeowners to actually read the law or seek their own legal advice rather than rely on assurances from those who have a clear, one-sided view.
The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled in Tarr v. Timberwood that the Residential Purpose clause cannot be used by HOAs to restrict or prohibit Short Term Rentals. This is a stricter ruling than has been found in other states. Cities and states across the country and across Texas are grappling with the idea of STR restrictions and how to strike a balance between property rights and property protections implicated by such restrictions. We maintain that it would be wiser and safer to let the legal dust settle, especially given how recent the Tarr case is, before passing restrictions that may end up falling on the wrong side of the decisions soon to be made by the courts. There are five bills currently under consideration by the Texas legislature and there are rumors that the City of Carrollton may soon enter into the STR debate. Any restrictions we write now may be invalidated by, or worse, contradict, laws to be passed in the near future. Rashness belongs to youth; prudence to old age.
Tarr v. Timberwood - Texas Supreme Court case barring prohibition of STRs by HOA Residential Purpose clause
“This is about as strong of a property rights type opinion as one can imagine,” Sutton said. “It is broadly applicable to [city] ordinances and to deed restrictions — it tells us what nine justices on this current court think about people using their land.”
STR Bill Proposals Before the Texas Legislature
House Bill 3778 Re: STRs Currently Under Consideration
The $1 Million HOA Blowup: It Started With the Misplaced Flower Pots
Judge Rejects HOA's Attempt to Impose Fines and Jail Time Over Backyard Swingset
Dallas homeowner again suing Orthodox neighbors, this time over a Sukkah
More Neighbors Sued Over Restrictive Covenant
Jury Awards $75,000 to Hayden Couple in 'War on Christmas' Lawsuit
Simpsonville homeowner seeks $1 million from HOA, dismissal of court case
Fairfax Homeowners Group Humbled by Court Battle with Residents
Florida Man Spends $200k for Right to Park in His Own Driveway
Is Another North Texas City Headed to the Courthouse Over STRs?
Arlington Group Seeks 'Seat at the Table' as Council Crafts Rules on Airbnb-style Rentals
Austin’s Unconstitutional Short-term Rental Ordinance
Short-Term Rental (STR) Update 2018
Legal Challenges Create Home-front Wars Over Short-term Rentals
5 Charts Showing State of Short-Term Rental Regulations in U.S. Cities
Short-term rentals prompt cities to action
Austin looks to crack down on "bad actor" short term rental owners
The Battle Over Short Term Rentals: Community Rights vs. Property Owner Rights
Restrictive Covenants: What Are They And Why Should You Care?
The Consequences of Tarr v. Timberwood Park
Political Contests Erupt as Cities and Hotel Industry Struggle to Curb AirBnB
Short Term Rentals, Long Term Controversy
The City of Carrollton has many laws already in place to address issues included in the Proposed Deed Restrictions. Vague wording in deed restrictions exposes homeowners to risks of selective enforcement, inconsistent application, harassment, and increased litigation by homeowners against the HOA and also by homeowners against other homeowners. We maintain the restrictions should give the HOA the power to enforce provisions that homeowners are already required to comply with by law whenever possible. This gives the Board the greater power and control it desires to address neighborhood issues without depriving property owners of additional rights or exposing them to the risks associated with vague wording.
Weeds and Other Unsanitary Matter
Fence Ordinance
Special Use Permits