A case study in missing a short term rental ordinance by three weeks

Take a rural lake town, population under 3,000, the kind of place that draws investors because price points are low enough that a single mistake does not end the operation. This case shows how it nearly can anyway. The property: three bed one and a half bath, 1,400 square feet, four blocks from a public boat launch, purchased at $172k. The buyer underwrote it nightly at $2,300 a month average across the year, conservative against what the two comparable listings in town were doing. Long-term rents in that town run $950 to $1,100. Payment plus taxes and insurance came to $1,240. At the time the contract was signed, the town had no short-term rental ordinance in place. What went unchecked was the planning commission's agenda, which carried a short-term rental permit proposal that same month. The ordinance passed during escrow. It capped permits at 25 within town limits and grandfathered anyone holding an active listing as of the effective date, which fell three weeks before closing. The property had never been listed, so nothing carried over. The 25 permits filled in nine days, mostly to owners who already had listings. The cost breakdown: $18,200 of furniture and setup, most already delivered ahead of a planned Memorial Day opening. Roughly $11k of that was resold over four months for about $4,200 back. A long-term tenant went in at $1,050, which against $1,240 of payment plus $180 of average maintenance meant the property ran about $370 a month negative for 14 months. It sold the following spring for $181k, netting out to roughly $9,000 down all in, plus 14 months of ongoing attention. The escrow contingency period had already expired before the council vote, and in this case the buyer chose not to contest it, unsure of the grounds. Whether grounds existed is a question for an attorney in that state. The lesson generalizes well: read the planning commission and council agendas for the previous 18 months in any market before writing an offer, not just the ordinance as it currently stands. And avoid buying where the fallback long-term rent does not cover the payment, regardless of how much room the nightly number appears to offer.

laurenkim53 PF4APRO 14

Answer

tashaford30 SG2CPRO 16

A near version of this comes up often enough to be a pattern. Same shape, small lake town, a buyer under contract when the item lands on an agenda they find by accident because a neighbor mentions it at a gas station. Sometimes it gets pushed to the next session and then dropped, and that is luck rather than diligence, which is worth saying out loud. On cause, the two lessons belong in the other order. The agenda reading is real and everyone should do it. But agendas can be posted a week out, items get amended on the floor, and a vote can land between an inspection and a closing no matter how carefully they are read. That risk can be reduced and it cannot be removed. What turned a lost business model into a $9,000 loss and 14 months is that $1,050 did not cover $1,240. If the fallback rent had covered the payment with a little room, the ordinance would have cost the upside and left you holding a small house in a lake town at $172k, waiting. That is a bad year instead of an exit. So the rule the numbers support is this. The nightly revenue is the reason to buy it and the long-term rent has to be the reason it is safe. If a market's long-term rents cannot carry the debt at the price being paid, the deal exists at the pleasure of a town council. Also worth saying that the furniture is the part people underestimate. Recovering 38 cents on the dollar is probably better than average for a fast sale.

tashaford30 SG2CPRO 16

1 reply

Reply Anonymous