Colorado Colorado Property Owners for Property Rights

[Quandary]

As anyone who pays attention to ski news knows affordability of housing in mountain towns for the average person is quit difficult. The lack of affordable housing has made life for residents in ski town virtually impossible. This difficulty leads to severe shortages in the local workforce, forcing many to live miles away and endure ling commutes through the mountain in winter weather. This situation serves to the detriment of residents and visitors alike. The primary driver the real estate price explosion is individuals and businesses driving up prices and using short-term rental income to be able to afford the artificially inflated prices. The Breckenridge Town Council has done an excellent job of trying to address this issue. The division of the town into zones with a reduction in the percentage of allowable short-term rental licenses (STL) as the distance from the ski hill increases is quit sensible. In essence trying to maintain the "residential" character of residential neighborhoods. Further any owner who had an STL when the ordinance went into effect was grandfathered and could continue renting. New buyers of course could not.

Today I received a mailing from Colorado Property Owners for Property Rights asking for money to sue Breckenridge. Obviously this is an organization formed by non-resident greedy bastards. As a part-time resident and property owner in Breckenridge I am vehemently opposed to the efforts of this organization. The steps Breckenridge has taken are proper and thoughtful. It is a reasoned approach. Anything that you can do to as an individual to oppose this movement against the common man would be appreciated.

 

[fatbob]

While I probably agree with you you're ultimately going to get dinged as political.

 

[pchewn]

Well, if I owned a property in Breck and did not yet have a short-term rental permit then I'd be contributing to this organization to sue Breck so I might be able to get a permit.

I don't think all of the new property owners are "greedy bastards" or "against the common man".

If I had been a long-term property owner and lived in my residence in Breck, and had a short-term rental permit for the loft over the garage, I also might want to sue. Because Breck's new rules just decreased my property value (because upon selling, the permit is not transferable to the new owner.) This decrease in value is a "taking" of the government against my property.

 

[Philpug]

While I probably agree with you you're ultimately going to get dinged as political.

As long as it stays ski related we are fine.

 

[Philpug]

Today I received a mailing from Colorado Property Owners for Property Rights asking for money to sue Breckenridge. Obviously this is an organization formed by non-resident greedy bastards.

I am not sure I am willing to blanketly call them greedy bastards resident or not. Was the law there when they purchased the property or did it change? And I agree, from what I hear, Breckenridge has done a great job in this area.

 

[crosscountry]

Because Breck's new rules just decreased my property value

Hmm... that's the very definition of "greedy".

 

[dbostedo]

Was the law there when they purchased the property or did it change?

It changed almost 2 years ago, and affected all homeowners who are short-term renting (STR). The goal in Summit county is to reduce the number of short term rental units by some number (I want to say reduce by 40% over the next 10 years, but I can't find where I read that). And I don't think anyone who bought before the law was in effect has lost the ability to rent their place, but I'm not 100% on that. There were some county actions in 2022 - it's possible there are some owners that did not have STR licenses, and were then unable to get them but assumed they could when they bought.

It's an effort to let more people live closer to communities they work in, and is actually meant to drive down the sale prices of properties that can't be short-term rented, as well as reducing renters and having more regular residents. And that seems to be occurring if you watch properties and prices in various areas (though it's not a lot of data yet, against the normal market fluctuations). Consquently, it's also holding up prices for places that are in zones (close to the resorts primarily) that CAN be short term rented by new owners.

The policy is driven, as noted in the OP, by STR property values and rates skyrocketing in the last few years, based on visitor numbers combined with more people buying places in order to mainly rent them out. I believe something like 30% of ALL housing in the county is being short-term rented. Which is a lot more housing than just what would be considered resort housing or vacation places.

Here's the market average home price over time, per Zillow. You can see the COVID driven increase in slope of the line, and the more recent 10-15% downturn. How much that's driven by the new policy, versus a normal bounce back after a quick increase, remains to be seen. I suspect it's some of both - maybe the COVID boom was coming down a bit anyway, and the new policy accelerated it.



(FWIW, full disclosure, just this past month I've bought a place in Keystone, in a zone that is unrestricted for short term rentals because it's close to the resort.)

 

[tball]

(FWIW, full disclosure, just this past month I've bought place in Keystone, in a zone that is unrestricted for short term rentals because it's close to the resort.)

Congrats on the purchase! I think folks in unrestricted resort rental zones will do well over the long term. Full disclosure, I've got a STR at Copper (all of Copper is considered in the resort zone).

Worth noting for Summit County is I believe the STR rules are different for Breck, Frisco, Silverthorne, and unincorporated Summit County, which includes Keystone and Copper. It's confusing. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[dbostedo]

Worth noting for Summit County is I believe the STR rules are different for Breck, Frisco, Silverthorne, and unincorporated Summit County, which includes Keystone and Copper. It's confusing. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's right, but similar restrictions are in place in the towns too. Breckenridge has defined zones, and caps on STR licenses in the zones. So as a new owner only the "Resort Zone" which allows 100% STR would guarantee the ability to rent. Otherwise you'd apply and get on the list. (There is some allowance/variation for actual resorts or condo-tels that you can buy into to always be rentable as well, versus regular condo/townhouse complexes or SFHs.)

The resort zone is very small, and not even all the places I'd consider to be "at the resort". Here's a map, yellow is the "Resort Zone", green is zone 1 where STR is at 92% of properties, and then it drops to 51% and 10% in the other zones.



Here's a lengthy post describing the zones and numbers:

Breckenridge Short-Term Rental Rules | Summit County Real Estate

Learn about Breckenridge short-term rental rules & Breckenridge short-term rental licenses for Breckenridge real estate in Summit County CO

summitrealtor.com

 

[dbostedo]

Congrats on the purchase!

And thanks! I feel very lucky.

 

[mikel]

Worth noting for Summit County is I believe the STR rules are different for Breck, Frisco, Silverthorne, and unincorporated Summit County, which includes Keystone and Copper. It's confusing. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep, I guess technically for right now Keystone is considered unincorporated.
Hopefully everything works out the way they want the town.

congratulations @dbostedo !

 

[Quandary]

When the initial ordinance was enacted in Breckenridge notice was given to all property owners. Any owner could have obtained a grandfathered short-term rental license.

Well, if I owned a property in Breck and did not yet have a short-term rental permit then I'd be contributing to this organization to sue Breck so I might be able to get a permit.

I don't think all of the new property owners are "greedy bastards" or "against the common man".

If I had been a long-term property owner and lived in my residence in Breck, and had a short-term rental permit for the loft over the garage, I also might want to sue. Because Breck's new rules just decreased my property value (because upon selling, the permit is not transferable to the new owner.) This decrease in value is a "taking" of the government against my property.

It is a local government entities fiduciary responsibility to provide a livable community for all residents, not just the wealthy or property owners. Thats why development is monitored, why there are zoning laws, speed limits etc. Local government is not there to help those who have get more. I don't know where you live, let's assume its a single family house. I am guessing you wouldn't be happy if a developer bought the block across the street from you, tore down all the houses and put up a strip mall. Hey its their property, that's the highest value.... What Breckenridge has done is no different.

 

[dbostedo]

When the initial ordinance was enacted in Breckenridge notice was given to all property owners. Any owner could have obtained a grandfathered short-term rental license.



It is a local government entities fiduciary responsibility to provide a livable community for all residents, not just the wealthy or property owners. Thats why development is monitored, why there are zoning laws, speed limits etc. Local government is not there to help those who have get more. I don't know where you live, let's assume its a single family house. I am guessing you wouldn't be happy if a developer bought the block across the street from you, tore down all the houses and put up a strip mall. Hey its their property, that's the highest value.... What Breckenridge has done is no different.

Where I grew up there are/were two main parallel roads through town... one a simple 2-lane road, and 1 a multi-lane highway. Here's a map, with the 2-lane road traced in blue.



There were a lot of residences along the 2-lane road, but at some point when I was younger, they re-zoned so that much of the property along the road, and between the two roads, had to be commercial property - it couldn't be sold as a residence. So of course that impacted property values and sales options for current owners, but it went through anyway. These days there's a bunch of hair salons, accountants, real estate agents, and other of those kinds of businesses along the road in what used to be single family homes. It's a little odd, but was viewed as better for the town growth rather than having residences there. Here's an example, that used to be a SFH and front yard, and is now a few businesses:




This situation in Summit County seems similar to me, in that they are using zoning laws to do things that they think will overall improve the community. Of course it's not a free market move, and definitely hurts some people. But zoning changes usually do, and only exist to try to have some control over land/property use and not a free-for-all. Whether or not the STR property prevalence/numbers in Summit County has actually been a problem, I don't really know. But I suppose enough people viewed it as one for now.

I'd imagine in any resort area/community, there is always some kind of balance needed... to make another analogy, most people that work in beach towns don't live right on the beach. And most people who work in mountain towns don't live right at the resorts. Typically in beach towns though (in my experience on the east coast anyway) there is a lot of nearby housing and towns (helped by the flat land and development areas)... that doesn't really exist in mountain towns with lots of federal and restricted land around, so it could be more of a challenge I'd imagine.

 

[chilehed]

Hmm... that's the very definition of "greedy".

You have a very strange idea of what it means to be greedy.

 

[dbostedo]

You have a very strange idea of what it means to be greedy.

I think he means owners only caring about their property value, and not the overall community, could be viewed as the owners being greedy. Not sure if that was clear.

 

[chilehed]

I think he means owners only caring about their property value, and not the overall community, could be viewed as the owners being greedy. Not sure if that was clear.

I don't see how objecting to the community taking my property without just compensation could be reasonably or honestly characterized as "greedy" or "not caring about the community". I do, however, see that such characterizations could reasonably and honestly viewed as libelous or slanderous.

 

[scott43]

I don't see how objecting to the community taking my property without just compensation could be reasonably or honestly characterized as "greedy" or "not caring about the community". I do, however, see that such characterizations could reasonably and honestly viewed as libelous or slanderous.

They're not taking it, they're changing what you can do with it. There are tools for the greater good as has been said. Having said that, I understand the angst. The problem is planning is ultimately bound to politics so it's a tricky discussion. The same time you're looking for a house on top of a hill, make sure you investigate all development plans for the next 50 years. Because one day there may be someone at the door telling you you're moving..

Even more sticky is that in some places, you are taxed based on new landuses. So for instance, if you're holding out in your single family home beside the subway stop, the gov't may redesignate your land to Office..which is taxed at a 10x higher rate than your single family home. And they say pay up or we'll take your house to pay the taxes. I don't think many places in North America do this, but it's done in Australia for instance.

 

[dbostedo]

I don't see how objecting to the community taking my property without just compensation could be reasonably or honestly characterized as "greedy" or "not caring about the community".

One rationale would be from those in favor of the rezoning that think what they are changing is for the good of the community. Objecting then could reasonably be viewed as greedy - i.e. you're putting your home value ahead of the good of the community.

The larger issue, I guess, is whether or not people agree on what's good for the community - because it all hinges on what actually IS better for the community.

 

[Jwrags]

It is always much easier to agree on what the end goal should be than how to achieve it. Communities need more than the young ski bums who keep the mountain functioning and are willing to live 2-4 to a room. They also need plumbers and electricians and carpenters etc. who have or want to have families. They need housing they can afford. Agreeing to a plan to get there is the hard part and very much creates a NIMBY situation.

 

[scott43]

One rationale would be from those in favor of the rezoning that think what they are changing is for the good of the community. Objecting then could reasonably be viewed as greedy - i.e. you're putting your home value ahead of the good of the community.

The larger issue, I guess, is whether or not people agree on what's good for the community - because it all hinges on what actually IS better for the community.

And that's the politics. Here we have wealthy landowners with large parcels in what's called our Greenbelt. A swathe of land that was deemed not developable because we need to preserve that area's natural heritage for a bunch of reasons. Then you have people screaming about not enough housing. And they play the political game saying, well we have lots of land ready to go..but you deemed it off-limits because..what..there are natural freshwater springs and farms and habitat there? It's not as obvious as it may seem because it takes 20-30-40 years to see the results of those decisions. US and Canada thought it was great to design around the car...looking back, not such a great idea. Hero one day, donkey the next..