Rehoboth Beach’s board of commissioners is currently thinking long and hard about keeping renters of vacation homes from swimming in pools at the houses they rent, reports The News Journal, because as houses keep growing larger, those with pools are causing a ruckus in residential neighborhoods.
Supporters of the pool rules are also in favor of limiting home sizes and occupancy limits for rented homes, saying these behemoths are changing the face of the resort.
“It’s just a desirable place. Unfortunately, we’re a victim of our own success,” said one resident who is ambivalent on keeping renters out of pools, but supports regulations on occupancy, home sizes and new rules for pools. “For houses today to be teardown houses at $1 million is mind-boggling. But that’s what people are paying.”
The town’s mayor agrees. He proposed the pool rule, writing in draft legislation that the growing attraction of these larger homes with pools to renters will have a “dramatic and destabilizing” effect on Rehoboth’s character.
“This is the high-rise fight of our generation, if you will,” said Mayor Sam Cooper, adding that many “have experienced a degradation in their quality of life because of primarily new houses, but the introduction of the pools has been the big tipping point. They’ve had rentals around them and it’s no problem. But it’s the introduction of these pools that has really tipped the balance.”
Of course, the owners of these sought after properties aren’t so pleased, saying banning renters from their pools would put a ding in their incomes and drive away renters from the resort town in general.
“They really, really need to take into account the economic consequences of what they’re saying,” said one homeowner who bought a cottage in 2012 with her spouse and added a pool and spa to it. “It is a resort, and it has been for quite awhile. Some of the things they’re proposing could have a severe effect on welcoming visitors and renters.”
Rehoboth board makes waves over swimming pools [The News Journal]
by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist
No comments:
Post a Comment