10 Replies Latest reply: May 1, 2012 7:00 PM by memel RSS

    Atlantic City New Jersey Government Restricts Vacation Rentals. Unconstitutional and Ripe with Corruption.

    New Member

      Please see news article and comments here for details.. http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/news-and-views/geoffs-page/The-Real-Report--AC-Restricts-Tourism-142635476.html#comments


      I own 3 properties in Atlantic City and received 3 citations and requested to go court for renting my properties!


      Comment #21 notes..

      “This happened in ft Lauderdale as well with the local government. The state stepped in and passed legislation that superseded local authority after several lawsuits were filed where homeowners were awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars. You all need to band together and let local government know this is a serious infringement on your rights and you are willing to fight them to the very end! They are hoping the little guy won't know any better or have the resources to fight them..PROVE THEM WRONG! In law.... PRECEDENT IS EVERYTHING! Also make sure you read through all the documents and provide your legal team of how this ordinance was passed in the first place. I would imagine you"ll find some foul play there!”


      Was this case disused here?.. would anyone have additional information?


      (From Wikipedia) Inverse condemnation is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the compensation required by the 5th Amendment of Constitution. In some states the term also includes damaging of property as well as taking it. In order to be compensated, the owner must then sue the government. In such cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is why the action is called inverse – the order of parties is reversed, as compared to the usual procedure in direct condemnation where the government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his or her property.

      The taking can be physical (e.g., land seizure, flooding, retention of possession after a lease to the government expires, deprivation of access, removal of ground support) or it can be a regulatory taking (when regulations are so onerous that they make the regulated property unusable by its owner for any reasonable or economically viable purpose).


      The latter (regulatory taking) expect would apply in this situation.


      Any input, thoughts, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

        • Re: Atlantic City New Jersey Government Restricts Vacation Rentals. Unconstitutional and Ripe with Corruption.
          msdebj Senior Contributor

          UGGGH!! but fascinating information.  This appears to be a current trend in many resort areas, and I can only think it comes from Property Management/real estate companies with great lobby power (who can find ways to get around  such statutes). 


          If you figure in lost revenue from vacation tax collections, loss of tourism dollar spent, employment opportunities for housekeeps, lawn care etc. it makes no sense. ( Unless court costs  revenues are going to overide all of that.) 


          NOISE? Please!  I get so tired of those who choose to live in tourism areas ( the draw of the area is why THEY want to be there, isn't it?) then slam the door on others who want to enjoy the area's benefits. 


          I do think this may be a "takings' issue,  and completely agree that you need to locate and band together with other VR homeowners and find an attorney and legislators willing to work for the entire state, just a  select few.


          Doesn't your Governor tout himself as being " of the people" and for working to improve your state's economic situation?   I don't mean to get political, but this is obviously a VERY politcal issue.


          Please keep us posted! I can see ths spreading across the country - quickly.


          • Re: Atlantic City New Jersey Government Restricts Vacation Rentals. Unconstitutional and Ripe with Corruption.
            carol Premier Contributor

            My condolences, what a shortsighted ordinance.  I'm also a Jersey shore vacation rental owner, and I worry about this kind of thing happening in my community.  The local Chamber of Commerce is predominantly B&B and hotel owners and they believe we compete with them for a share of the market.  I worry that they might influence the town council to pass such an ordinance. 


            But the families who rent my big old house would not be comfortable in a B&B or hotel -- they want to have more privacy and a chance for the cousins to play and the grownups to catch up with each other.   And every one of my guests wanders through our Main St. and spends lots of money in the town, so I hope that the other merchants understand that vacation renters are much better for local business than owner-occupied homes. (The owners all drive out to Home Depot, the malls, and Target, but renters don't want to waste their vacation time going to the same stores they have at home, they'd rather visit the boutiques)


            I've decided I need to join the Chamber of Commerce myself and make sure that vacation rental owners are seen as running legitimate businesses that really do enhance the town.   

            • Re: Atlantic City New Jersey Government Restricts Vacation Rentals. Unconstitutional and Ripe with Corruption.
              New Member

              Thanks for the input guy’s.


              I would expect HomeAway would be at the forefront of understanding and fighting ordnances/restrictions like this as these scenarios directly impacts there ability to do business in a growing number of cities. It would be great to hear from a HA rep that is experienced in these matters. Specifically what is HA doing to combat issues like this and how can they assist owners (that pay good money to advertise with them) in removing, addressing, and educating owners concerning these ordnances and restrictions.

              • Re: Atlantic City New Jersey Government Restricts Vacation Rentals. Unconstitutional and Ripe with Corruption.
                New Member

                There is a similar law on the books in the Town of Southampton. This includes Sag Harbor, Bridgehampton, Water Mill, Shinecock, Hampton Bays and I think Flanders and East Quogue. It does NOT, however include Southampton Village, conveniently.

                This law (270) states that the Chief Building Inspector determines whether a property qualifies. Here are some of the highlights:

                - You have to obtain a Rental Permit with the names of every one of the persons renting.

                - To get a permit you have to have an inspection by an architect or engineer stating that the place is up to code.

                - No shares.

                - Minimum stay 29 days.

                - If you advertise to the general population or part of the general population, your property is considered a rental. If ANYONE is staying there besides the owner or the owner's immediate family, they consider the property rented, whether ot NOT you are paid, in any way. (Sorry, no friends borrowing the place for the weekend while you're at your mother-in-law's!)

                - $200 fee the first year, $100 bi-annually thereafter.

                Here's the kicker: "a fine not less than $1,500 nor more than $8,000 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or both, for a conviction of a first offense;

                For conviction of a second or subsequent offense within 18 months, a fine not less than $3,000 nor more than $15,000 or imprisonment not to exceed a period of six months, or both."

                Happy renting!