During the "fact finding" Stakeholder Meetings, it was mentioned on multiple occasions that only negative information is presented within the power point presentation. In order to have full transparency and creditability is seems the messaging should reflect all sides, including the positive ones. The survey results are in. The Economic Impact Study results are in. Both of which tell a very different story than what is presented in the power point.
Unfortunately, even though public feedback has been provided in various formats, what has been communicated seems to have been heard but not listened to, nor clearly represented.
In order to determine, let alone formulate, an Ordinance the facts need to be understood. Facts such as: #1 the number of complaints received #2 the types of complaints #3 where the complaints are coming from (gated/non-gated communities) #4 the pattern of complaints (frequency from a few involving a few properties) #5 resolutions attempted #6 the number drownings #7 location of drownings #8 the number of STR properties involved in the drownings #9 the number of drownings where the pool was fenced
When questioned about these statistics the Town's response was they had not been tracking this detail of information. So now, here we are with tax payer money being spent to develop an Ordinance that appears to be based on hearsay and personal Council Member experiences and not the applicable facts.
Then there is House Bill 4547 that is pending within the State of SC preventing such Ordinances to be in place.
Wouldn't it be prudent to actually track the facts for 2022 and even 2023, then determine if an Ordinance is necessary. If yes, then an Ordinance can be developed to address the specifics and not throw a blanket over the entire Island. Plus, HB4547 may be passed which will have an impact anyway. To try to push the current proposal through negates the purpose and responsibility of the Council and that is to serve those who have elected them into Office. Please take the responsible steps and get the facts first.
A requirement that a sign be posted when a property is being rented for STR could make our property a target for break-ins and possibly put your guests in danger. The sign identifies your property as being occupied by someone likely from out of town and perhaps traveling with cameras or other valuables. Please do NOT add this requirement.
We live full time in Pennsylvania and have been owners of a single unit home in Sea Pines for 6 years and visitors to the HHI for over 30 years.
We know our neighbors and our neighborhood. We rent our home both long and short term. Initially we had a property management company manage our property and guests. It was chaotic and we were in the dark. In 2019, we took over managing the property, guests, service providers, taxes, etc. We use VRBO because they provide an advertising outlet and liability coverage. We have direct contact with all guests and they are provided documentation on expected behavior and house "rules". Guests have our direct contact info and we resolve issues promptly. We ask our neighbors to contact us immediately if there is any unacceptable behavior. We are happy to report there has been none.
We have made significant improvements to our property and we are contemplating more investments in the future. However, if HH government wants to be heavy handed in it's interpretation of housing development such that it can arbitrarily identify "large" homes and "mini-hotels", then perhaps we should considering investing elsewhere.
The idea of posting our name and phone number in 4" high letters outside to identify that "renters are onsite" is shear stupidity. Even in gated Sea Pines, there are landscapers, housekeepers, delivery personnel, construction workers, pool service techs, etc. traversing the area daily. 99% of these people are fine folks. But it only takes one. This requirement would open the owners and guests to unscrupulous behavior and risks.
There is a distinct difference in rental guest behavior inside versus outside a gated community. Significant forms of regulation and taxation already exist within the gated communities to regulate parking, trash management, noise, etc. Perhaps targeting the source(s) of the problems on HHI rather than burdening the law abiding masses is a more effective approach without turning loyal tax paying citizens sour.
The "study" submitted to HH completely missed the impact on COVID and the macro-change in business dynamics. HH rentals plateaued in 2020 & 2021 because individuals who could work remote were moving to awesome places like HHI. Availability has totally dried up. Rentals have been at a premium. And companies like VRBO & AirBnB have taken rental market share from the local heavyweights. Is that the real motivation here?
Long time visitor, property owner since 2016,currently building a home to rent in order to offset cost until my wife and I move down full time in a few years. I participated in what town council has called info gathering sessions and survey, yet it is clear that they had their minds made up well before starting this process.They are more interested in increased control, making STR owners look like bad guys & unreasonably asserting that STRs are the source of all "quality of life" issues as if all the friends & family who visit residents regularly couldn't possibly contribute to any of this. This is evidenced by the proposed ordinance which goes way beyond the scope of addressing these unsubstantiated issues. Anne was asked multiple time for data supporting the supposed complaints that put this in motion but could not produce any. Not only are the rules an overreach, most are already taken care of by HOAs. Others, like the sign requirement, are dangerous. Putting a sign up puts thieves on notice that unsuspecting vacationers are there and that at other times, the house is vacant. Nothing will negatively impact tourism on HHI quicker then an increase in crime against tourists. The min. parking space requirement is just ridiculous and if the town feels it is needed,it should be applied town wide as part of the building permit process not after the fact when it would be extremely costly if not impossible to alter. It should be enough to just say, no street parking, and it should be applied to all property owners, as all contribute to parking issues.
It is extremely short sided for town council to single out and put burdensome requirements on those who pay a larger portion of the tax burden, yet don't use public resources like schools. Those same residents who may have complained will miss the revenue when projects can't be done or taxes are raised bc some STR owners don't want to deal with the hassle and stop renting. As a taxpayer, I am frustrated with the town's waste of taxpayer money on consultants to promote HHI only to pay other consultants to look for ways to limit options for travelers to stay on the island. Also, the money that will be wasted defending the inevitable litigation that will result from this ordinance. I can only hope that HHI voters will keep this waste in mind at the next election. I also hope that the state will do what's best for its citizens and pass the bill currently in the house prohibiting town overreach like we are seeing here.
I participated in the "fact gathering" process and completed the survey. Throughout this process, town council said it was going to listen to the people before crafting any ordinance but it is clear from what is proposed that they didn't listen to the feedback and clearly had their own agenda, which is evidenced by the fact that the majority of stakeholders who completed the survey are FT residents, and the majority of their responses were against any restrictions on short term rentals. Further, they ignored the fact that most STRs are governed by HOA that address these "quality of life" issues already and have been doing so for years and don't need the town's interference.
Town council claimed this was driven by complaints from FT residents yet has no data or specific complaint info to support this.
Town council claims the purpose is to adress "quality of life issues" on the island like noise, parking & trash yet proposed requirements are discriminatory to those who operate STRs, seek to greatly the restrict how we can use our property without any consideration that these same issues arise at properties that do not host STRs & go far beyond what is needed to address what they claim are issues. This is clearly a town council power grab.
-Requirement for pool fence or alarm(as if drownings can only happen in STRs)
-Minimum size parking spaces in driveways of 18' x 9' (Apparently residents who have visitors don't also create a parking issue) Ms Becker mentioned situations in which she has friends over & they have to park on the street.
-Require that STRs have a visible sign indicating that it is a STR w contact info( people with law enforcement backgrounds spoke out against this at meetings saying that it basically would make homes with signs a target for thieves who now would know it is not owner occupied)
These discriminatory rules will at worst result in litigation that will be a waste of taxpayer money and at best alienate one of the largest sources of tax revenue on the island causing some to rethink whether or not STRs are worth the hassle.
It's unfortunate that town council would let a minority of unhappy residents and their own desire for control to put forward such a discriminatory and onerous restriction on property rights that will negatively impact those who shoulder an increased share of the tax burden. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and our state leaders will pass legislations restricting these town power grabs.
We aare strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, This opens our property or renters up to possible property theft. As registry would be a far better way to accomplish the same thing.
Parking, Garbage control, Fire Alarms and Fire exits are all compliant. Our contract already covers noise ordinance and times of use of the facilities. The real question is that we must be able to respond to any complaint within one hour regardless of any scheduling issue with the SRT agent. This is not only unreasonable but not possible. If their an issue then a reasonable amount of time must be allowed to correct the situation.
I strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, listing the contact information for the property manager or management company. We have owned a property within Palmetto Dunes for 10 years. We share Palmetto Dunes standards with our guests prior to arrival and have that information in our villa as well - trash requirements, noise, and safety are all addressed. We limit our bookings and have weeks at a time where we don't have guests in our villa. Posting a sign outside our villa feels like we are exposing our guests to safety concerns and our property can be identified when it is empty which is more than concerning. Our housekeeper is off Island and having her or a management company come on Island to display a sign (because we have gaps in rentals) will cause additional cost and management overhead for her, and an additional expense for us, and an environmental impact to the Island with needless traffic.
My husband and I are the owners of a vacation home on the island and when we are not using it, make it available as a short term rental. I truly believe the Town has gone a tad too far in their need for control.
I believe that there are probably areas around the island that could stand some control, but not all. My husband and I are responsible homeowners/short-term rental managers. We are happy to provide a safe family environment to our guests. We are in contact with our guests from the minute our home is booked to when they leave. They are notified upon booking of the home and community rules and have to agree to them. We have our contact info noted on much of the documentation (received prior to their stay as well as in the home); they are aware of the what is required with respect to noise (and quiet times); they are aware of garbage bin locations and days of trash pick-up; and finally, they are aware of safety measures within the home.
All of the short-term owners that I know expect guests to treat their home like it is their own. We are all responsible and expect that from our guests.
From a safety perspective, I am MORE THAN A BIT CONCERNED posting the fact that we are a rental unit. This requirement will make own property a target for break-ins and possibly put guests in danger. While you state that the sign only has to be posted when the home is rented, it does identify own property as being occupied by a guest from out of town and perhaps traveling with valuables. As I said, it makes own home a target for break-ins, property loss possibly and potential for damage to it. As someone previously stated in the comments, “It lets anyone case our property at times when the sign may not be in place, effectively broadcasting that there is no one in the home.”
In reading through the proposed material, my husband and I feel that STR owners are being singled out in spite of the positive economic impact we have on the town. We live in our home half the year and rent it the other half. Is the Town of Hilton Head trying to eliminate STR’s and the economic impact that it has on South Carolina?
The economic impact that STR’s have on the island is tremendous. There needs to be a more balanced approach taken that is fairer for all parties.
As a year year owner of a vacation rental property in Hilton Head, I strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is on This section would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, listing the contact information for the property manager or management company. This requirement could make my property and others a target for break-ins and possibly put guests in danger. The sign only has to be posted when the home is rented so it identifies the property as being occupied by someone likely from out of town and perhaps traveling with valuables. In addition, if someone is monitoring the home for criminal activity, posting a sign will allow a criminal to track when a home is vacant and plan break-ins then as well. This ordinance will have terrible unintended consequences for our entire community. I am all for having reasonable regulations around rental properties, but as written this goes way too far and creates a path for criminal activity.
I am the owner of a short term rental home in Sea Pines. We use a property management company that is very responsive, and we go out of our way to review all renters prior to signing a contract. I participated in one of the town hall sessions requesting feedback. My position was open minded and neutral until reading the actual text of the proposed ordinance. My only feedback (and that was echoed by numerous others) was concern about posting information outside the home. Clearly staff disregarded that feedback or perhaps strategically included it so it can be dropped later?? Most of what is proposed we currently do - especially the printed forms and education of our future renters. We have not had noise issues except for one instance where Sea Pines Security was quickly dispatched and that was minor according to numerous other neighbors. We cannot control all actions of our renters however we wish we could. In summary the ordinance needs more work as written regarding enforcement and external posting. We are opposed as written and will actively engage with the coalition forming against this proposal.
I am the owner of a short term rental condo, and I think you have gone a bit too far with this ordinance. I understand the desire and need to have some rules or regulations, especially about noise, relative to renters. I have posted the quiet times in my unit. Most of us owners are very responsible. But it is a REALLY BAD IDEA to have any signage posted on the exterior of our property with a management company contact. That is making both the property and our renters targets for break-ins, loss of property, or damage to property, due to others knowing that it is not permanently occupied. It lets anyone case our property at times when the sign may not be in place, effectively broadcasting that there is no one in the home. I realize that there must be a balance. But it seems you are overly blaming the STRs for increased traffic, noise, and other less desirable results. I think it is also unreasonable and unrealistic to require that a manager respond IN PERSON within one hour of any issue with our property. The result of such an action will be that the current managers active on HHI will be overwhelmed, and likely refuse to continue with management, or will increase rates such that we can no longer employ them. Let's all remember that having people want to vacation in Hilton Head is a good thing. We are a popular place. Property values are up, and renters are returning. But if the town imposes very strict regulations on managers, owners, and renters, this may no longer be the case. It will make it much harder to do business. And many investors who purchased property and whose rentals provide the town with a lot of income, may feel blindsided if sudden regulations limit their ability to rent their properties as they had planned. We need to find a better balance here, and not burden the STR properties more than others. There are many residents who also have large crowds, too many cars parked, etc. We shouldn't demonize STRs as the root of all issues. They provide a lot of income to the town, local restaurants, etc. There needs to be understanding and an ability to work together. We all love this island and we all want to preserve it. So please reconsider this policy, and enact a more fair and balanced approach.
During the "fact finding" Stakeholder Meetings, it was mentioned on multiple occasions that only negative information is presented within the power point presentation. In order to have full transparency and creditability is seems the messaging should reflect all sides, including the positive ones. The survey results are in. The Economic Impact Study results are in. Both of which tell a very different story than what is presented in the power point.
Unfortunately, even though public feedback has been provided in various formats, what has been communicated seems to have been heard but not listened to, nor clearly represented.
In order to determine, let alone formulate, an Ordinance the facts need to be understood. Facts such as: #1 the number of complaints received #2 the types of complaints #3 where the complaints are coming from (gated/non-gated communities) #4 the pattern of complaints (frequency from a few involving a few properties) #5 resolutions attempted #6 the number drownings #7 location of drownings #8 the number of STR properties involved in the drownings #9 the number of drownings where the pool was fenced
When questioned about these statistics the Town's response was they had not been tracking this detail of information. So now, here we are with tax payer money being spent to develop an Ordinance that appears to be based on hearsay and personal Council Member experiences and not the applicable facts.
Then there is House Bill 4547 that is pending within the State of SC preventing such Ordinances to be in place.
Wouldn't it be prudent to actually track the facts for 2022 and even 2023, then determine if an Ordinance is necessary. If yes, then an Ordinance can be developed to address the specifics and not throw a blanket over the entire Island. Plus, HB4547 may be passed which will have an impact anyway. To try to push the current proposal through negates the purpose and responsibility of the Council and that is to serve those who have elected them into Office. Please take the responsible steps and get the facts first.
A requirement that a sign be posted when a property is being rented for STR could make our property a target for break-ins and possibly put your guests in danger. The sign identifies your property as being occupied by someone likely from out of town and perhaps traveling with cameras or other valuables. Please do NOT add this requirement.
We live full time in Pennsylvania and have been owners of a single unit home in Sea Pines for 6 years and visitors to the HHI for over 30 years.
We know our neighbors and our neighborhood. We rent our home both long and short term. Initially we had a property management company manage our property and guests. It was chaotic and we were in the dark. In 2019, we took over managing the property, guests, service providers, taxes, etc. We use VRBO because they provide an advertising outlet and liability coverage. We have direct contact with all guests and they are provided documentation on expected behavior and house "rules". Guests have our direct contact info and we resolve issues promptly. We ask our neighbors to contact us immediately if there is any unacceptable behavior. We are happy to report there has been none.
We have made significant improvements to our property and we are contemplating more investments in the future. However, if HH government wants to be heavy handed in it's interpretation of housing development such that it can arbitrarily identify "large" homes and "mini-hotels", then perhaps we should considering investing elsewhere.
The idea of posting our name and phone number in 4" high letters outside to identify that "renters are onsite" is shear stupidity. Even in gated Sea Pines, there are landscapers, housekeepers, delivery personnel, construction workers, pool service techs, etc. traversing the area daily. 99% of these people are fine folks. But it only takes one. This requirement would open the owners and guests to unscrupulous behavior and risks.
There is a distinct difference in rental guest behavior inside versus outside a gated community. Significant forms of regulation and taxation already exist within the gated communities to regulate parking, trash management, noise, etc. Perhaps targeting the source(s) of the problems on HHI rather than burdening the law abiding masses is a more effective approach without turning loyal tax paying citizens sour.
The "study" submitted to HH completely missed the impact on COVID and the macro-change in business dynamics. HH rentals plateaued in 2020 & 2021 because individuals who could work remote were moving to awesome places like HHI. Availability has totally dried up. Rentals have been at a premium. And companies like VRBO & AirBnB have taken rental market share from the local heavyweights. Is that the real motivation here?
Thank you - Bob
Long time visitor, property owner since 2016,currently building a home to rent in order to offset cost until my wife and I move down full time in a few years. I participated in what town council has called info gathering sessions and survey, yet it is clear that they had their minds made up well before starting this process.They are more interested in increased control, making STR owners look like bad guys & unreasonably asserting that STRs are the source of all "quality of life" issues as if all the friends & family who visit residents regularly couldn't possibly contribute to any of this. This is evidenced by the proposed ordinance which goes way beyond the scope of addressing these unsubstantiated issues. Anne was asked multiple time for data supporting the supposed complaints that put this in motion but could not produce any. Not only are the rules an overreach, most are already taken care of by HOAs. Others, like the sign requirement, are dangerous. Putting a sign up puts thieves on notice that unsuspecting vacationers are there and that at other times, the house is vacant. Nothing will negatively impact tourism on HHI quicker then an increase in crime against tourists. The min. parking space requirement is just ridiculous and if the town feels it is needed,it should be applied town wide as part of the building permit process not after the fact when it would be extremely costly if not impossible to alter. It should be enough to just say, no street parking, and it should be applied to all property owners, as all contribute to parking issues.
It is extremely short sided for town council to single out and put burdensome requirements on those who pay a larger portion of the tax burden, yet don't use public resources like schools. Those same residents who may have complained will miss the revenue when projects can't be done or taxes are raised bc some STR owners don't want to deal with the hassle and stop renting. As a taxpayer, I am frustrated with the town's waste of taxpayer money on consultants to promote HHI only to pay other consultants to look for ways to limit options for travelers to stay on the island. Also, the money that will be wasted defending the inevitable litigation that will result from this ordinance. I can only hope that HHI voters will keep this waste in mind at the next election. I also hope that the state will do what's best for its citizens and pass the bill currently in the house prohibiting town overreach like we are seeing here.
I participated in the "fact gathering" process and completed the survey. Throughout this process, town council said it was going to listen to the people before crafting any ordinance but it is clear from what is proposed that they didn't listen to the feedback and clearly had their own agenda, which is evidenced by the fact that the majority of stakeholders who completed the survey are FT residents, and the majority of their responses were against any restrictions on short term rentals. Further, they ignored the fact that most STRs are governed by HOA that address these "quality of life" issues already and have been doing so for years and don't need the town's interference.
Town council claimed this was driven by complaints from FT residents yet has no data or specific complaint info to support this.
Town council claims the purpose is to adress "quality of life issues" on the island like noise, parking & trash yet proposed requirements are discriminatory to those who operate STRs, seek to greatly the restrict how we can use our property without any consideration that these same issues arise at properties that do not host STRs & go far beyond what is needed to address what they claim are issues. This is clearly a town council power grab.
-Requirement for pool fence or alarm(as if drownings can only happen in STRs)
-Minimum size parking spaces in driveways of 18' x 9' (Apparently residents who have visitors don't also create a parking issue) Ms Becker mentioned situations in which she has friends over & they have to park on the street.
-Require that STRs have a visible sign indicating that it is a STR w contact info( people with law enforcement backgrounds spoke out against this at meetings saying that it basically would make homes with signs a target for thieves who now would know it is not owner occupied)
These discriminatory rules will at worst result in litigation that will be a waste of taxpayer money and at best alienate one of the largest sources of tax revenue on the island causing some to rethink whether or not STRs are worth the hassle.
It's unfortunate that town council would let a minority of unhappy residents and their own desire for control to put forward such a discriminatory and onerous restriction on property rights that will negatively impact those who shoulder an increased share of the tax burden. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and our state leaders will pass legislations restricting these town power grabs.
We aare strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, This opens our property or renters up to possible property theft. As registry would be a far better way to accomplish the same thing.
Parking, Garbage control, Fire Alarms and Fire exits are all compliant. Our contract already covers noise ordinance and times of use of the facilities. The real question is that we must be able to respond to any complaint within one hour regardless of any scheduling issue with the SRT agent. This is not only unreasonable but not possible. If their an issue then a reasonable amount of time must be allowed to correct the situation.
I strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, listing the contact information for the property manager or management company. We have owned a property within Palmetto Dunes for 10 years. We share Palmetto Dunes standards with our guests prior to arrival and have that information in our villa as well - trash requirements, noise, and safety are all addressed. We limit our bookings and have weeks at a time where we don't have guests in our villa. Posting a sign outside our villa feels like we are exposing our guests to safety concerns and our property can be identified when it is empty which is more than concerning. Our housekeeper is off Island and having her or a management company come on Island to display a sign (because we have gaps in rentals) will cause additional cost and management overhead for her, and an additional expense for us, and an environmental impact to the Island with needless traffic.
My husband and I are the owners of a vacation home on the island and when we are not using it, make it available as a short term rental. I truly believe the Town has gone a tad too far in their need for control.
I believe that there are probably areas around the island that could stand some control, but not all. My husband and I are responsible homeowners/short-term rental managers. We are happy to provide a safe family environment to our guests. We are in contact with our guests from the minute our home is booked to when they leave. They are notified upon booking of the home and community rules and have to agree to them. We have our contact info noted on much of the documentation (received prior to their stay as well as in the home); they are aware of the what is required with respect to noise (and quiet times); they are aware of garbage bin locations and days of trash pick-up; and finally, they are aware of safety measures within the home.
All of the short-term owners that I know expect guests to treat their home like it is their own. We are all responsible and expect that from our guests.
From a safety perspective, I am MORE THAN A BIT CONCERNED posting the fact that we are a rental unit. This requirement will make own property a target for break-ins and possibly put guests in danger. While you state that the sign only has to be posted when the home is rented, it does identify own property as being occupied by a guest from out of town and perhaps traveling with valuables. As I said, it makes own home a target for break-ins, property loss possibly and potential for damage to it. As someone previously stated in the comments, “It lets anyone case our property at times when the sign may not be in place, effectively broadcasting that there is no one in the home.”
In reading through the proposed material, my husband and I feel that STR owners are being singled out in spite of the positive economic impact we have on the town. We live in our home half the year and rent it the other half. Is the Town of Hilton Head trying to eliminate STR’s and the economic impact that it has on South Carolina?
The economic impact that STR’s have on the island is tremendous. There needs to be a more balanced approach taken that is fairer for all parties.
As a year year owner of a vacation rental property in Hilton Head, I strongly oppose the ordinance in section 10-2-20 (5) which is on This section would require short-term rental owners to post a sign outside their property when the property is rented, listing the contact information for the property manager or management company. This requirement could make my property and others a target for break-ins and possibly put guests in danger. The sign only has to be posted when the home is rented so it identifies the property as being occupied by someone likely from out of town and perhaps traveling with valuables. In addition, if someone is monitoring the home for criminal activity, posting a sign will allow a criminal to track when a home is vacant and plan break-ins then as well. This ordinance will have terrible unintended consequences for our entire community. I am all for having reasonable regulations around rental properties, but as written this goes way too far and creates a path for criminal activity.
I am the owner of a short term rental home in Sea Pines. We use a property management company that is very responsive, and we go out of our way to review all renters prior to signing a contract. I participated in one of the town hall sessions requesting feedback. My position was open minded and neutral until reading the actual text of the proposed ordinance. My only feedback (and that was echoed by numerous others) was concern about posting information outside the home. Clearly staff disregarded that feedback or perhaps strategically included it so it can be dropped later?? Most of what is proposed we currently do - especially the printed forms and education of our future renters. We have not had noise issues except for one instance where Sea Pines Security was quickly dispatched and that was minor according to numerous other neighbors. We cannot control all actions of our renters however we wish we could. In summary the ordinance needs more work as written regarding enforcement and external posting. We are opposed as written and will actively engage with the coalition forming against this proposal.
I am the owner of a short term rental condo, and I think you have gone a bit too far with this ordinance. I understand the desire and need to have some rules or regulations, especially about noise, relative to renters. I have posted the quiet times in my unit. Most of us owners are very responsible. But it is a REALLY BAD IDEA to have any signage posted on the exterior of our property with a management company contact. That is making both the property and our renters targets for break-ins, loss of property, or damage to property, due to others knowing that it is not permanently occupied. It lets anyone case our property at times when the sign may not be in place, effectively broadcasting that there is no one in the home. I realize that there must be a balance. But it seems you are overly blaming the STRs for increased traffic, noise, and other less desirable results. I think it is also unreasonable and unrealistic to require that a manager respond IN PERSON within one hour of any issue with our property. The result of such an action will be that the current managers active on HHI will be overwhelmed, and likely refuse to continue with management, or will increase rates such that we can no longer employ them. Let's all remember that having people want to vacation in Hilton Head is a good thing. We are a popular place. Property values are up, and renters are returning. But if the town imposes very strict regulations on managers, owners, and renters, this may no longer be the case. It will make it much harder to do business. And many investors who purchased property and whose rentals provide the town with a lot of income, may feel blindsided if sudden regulations limit their ability to rent their properties as they had planned. We need to find a better balance here, and not burden the STR properties more than others. There are many residents who also have large crowds, too many cars parked, etc. We shouldn't demonize STRs as the root of all issues. They provide a lot of income to the town, local restaurants, etc. There needs to be understanding and an ability to work together. We all love this island and we all want to preserve it. So please reconsider this policy, and enact a more fair and balanced approach.