Capped permit market with a $70k premium, or the unregulated county next door
Two things on my list right now and they're the same house in different rule sets, so I'd like to hear how people weigh this.
Option one is a small resort city that capped nightly permits a few years back. Existing permits transfer with the sale if the buyer files inside a short window, which the city clerk confirmed to me in writing, and new applications go on a waitlist that hasn't moved much. Listing supply is flat because it can't grow. Comparable non-permitted houses in the same neighborhoods trade around $70k cheaper, so I'd be paying that premium for the right to operate. My rough underwriting has the permitted house at about $58k gross, 61% occupancy, mid-$130s ADR in shoulder season.
Option two is the county 35 minutes out with no ordinance at all. Same house shape, $70k less, and the tourism draw is the same lake. But listings there grew from roughly 190 to 310 in two years by my count, occupancy in the data I can see slid from the high 50s to the high 40s, and there is nothing stopping the next 200 listings. Also nothing stopping the county from writing an ordinance from scratch, which historically tends to be harsher than a cap that already grandfathered everyone in.
So: is a cap a moat that protects my revenue, or is it proof the local politics are already hostile and one council vote from getting worse? The premium is priced as if the moat holds. I'm not sure it is priced as if the cap can be tightened.
Curious which risk people would rather own.
Which would you rather buy?
27 votes