The back-and-forth continues for pending Bert Harris cases in Holmes Beach.
Represented by attorney Aaron Thomas, of the Najmy Thompson Bradenton law office in Bradenton, plaintiffs Jan. 14 filed an amended version of a Jan. 13 motion to reconsider a recent ruling by 12th Circuit Court Judge Ed Nicholas.
The judge’s ruling Jan. 8 granted the city’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the same motion filed against the city by three owners of vacation rental properties.
The city is defending itself after noticing the properties for renting to a greater occupancy than allowed by its rental regulations.
The properties initially were developed and rented before adoption of the regulations.
The city’s attorney, Jay Daigneault, of Trask Daigneault in Clearwater, Jan. 17 filed a response asking the court to strike the motion to reconsider.
The plaintiffs disagreed with the judge’s interpretation of “inordinate burden” — defined by the Bert Harris Act as an action of a government entity, which prohibits the property owner from earning “the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use.”
In the amended motion, Thomas included a portion of the Bert Harris Act that states the Legislature provides relief when a new law “unfairly affects real property,” and says there is no case law addressing the severity of the burden, according to the act.
The city motion to strike states the plaintiffs’ motion is premature, as the judge has not issued a written order.
The owners, properties and their complaints are:
- AMI Breeze, 209 54th St., reduction of 20 to 16 occupants.
- Coral Escape of Holmes Beach, 132 50th St., reduction of 14 to 12 occupants.
- Mojito Splash, 304 65th St., reduction of 12 to 10 occupants.
As of Jan. 22, Nicholas had not filed the written order.
Really, 20 occupants? The size of a small hotel, which is exactly what these structures are. Look up the address – 8 bedrooms/entire house rental. Don’t tell me it’s a “mom and pop operation with granny and granddad making a little extra money to pay their mortgage.
This has to be stopped!
Let your legislators know you aren’t voting for anyone who takes away local control over short-term rentals – houses will be built (we have one in our neighborhood with 11 bedrooms that slept 24 people before we had local control over them) that will cram in dozens of people on a nightly/weekly basis. Believe me, you don’t want this in your neighborhood.
Enough is enough.
I am surprised the city opened itself up for litigation like this. An EASIER and much cheaper ruling would have been to allow the current owners the rental rules under which they purchase to stand until they sold the homes/properties. I would be LIVID if someone came in and wanted to change this after I legitimately followed the rules for purchase and rental; it is just throwing lawyers money.