LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
I read with interest the opinions expressed via Letters to the Editor in the March 21st Wimberley View. We are new residents, having moved a few months ago from a rural area outside of the Austin city limits. Our neighborhood had first hand experience with Short Term Rentals and the problems they can present, which mirror many of the problems of STRs in city neighborhoods. The letters made STRs sound enticing, profitable, worthy of consideration from a tourism point of view.
Our experience differed. The only people who seemed truly enthused were those who owned the homes being rented. Surrounding neighbors dealt (unhappily) with the intrusions of loud music and general noise, litter, light pollution, additional traffic and speeders, blocked driveways and cars parked on lawns, occasional trespass and “views” they didn’t want. They strongly felt the overall effect was diminished property values and the loss of the quiet privacy that originally enticed them to buy in the area. The issue divided the neighborhood. And all this was despite STR rules imposed by registration regarding occupancy, noise and more. The homeowners may have agreed, but the guests sometimes had other plans. There seemed to be no consequences or timely follow up to some real abuses.
According to neighbors near the STRs, bachelor/ bachelorette parties could be the worst, with more people than allowed, loud music, drunken howling until the wee hours and line-of-sight views of behavior best kept from children. You might think that this would be the exception, but not according to those nearby. Yes, there were sometimes considerate renters, and that’s what everyone imagines when they want to open their neighborhoods to STRs.
One neighbor, in particular, rented often and with the listed complaints. They lived in downtown Austin so were rarely present at the rural home. The STR funded their living expenses; the distance enabled them to ignore the problems their STR foisted on others. Efforts to deal directly with them were met with anger, denial, rude dismissals, and arguments about “rights, which ultimately led to threats of litigation from both sides.
The last scandalous straw was a party that could at best be described as involving nudity, casual “hook-ups” and animals. Despite occupancy limits and pre-registration of those willing to pay a fee, a hundred showed up. While the party was underway, the homeowner next door discovered the announcement online and published it to the neighborhood. It was explicit; the details made it hard to believe the hosting neighbor did not “know.” It DID include the instruction to wear clothes until after you entered, but this did nothing to help the neighbors with shared fences and windows facing the backyard event. Police were called but seemed unable to do anything.
The letters in the March 21st Wimberley View suggested checking with big cities to see how great STRs are. By all means, DO check to discover other facts, including what a hassle they can be, how hard they are to control/manage despite rules by local governments, and how truly hard they are to “decertify” once established. The community may still want to offer STRs, but should enter the process with eyes wide open.
Susan O’Neill