Ideal ratio of rentals to owner-occupied in HOA?

As our discussion within the campaign group moves on, and we discover there are at least 37 out of 150 homes (at least, we have a few more streets to check) that are owned by trusts/corporations.

Does anyone have a source around what an IDEAL ratio is for owner occupied to trust/corps?

Seeking that data to get a more complete snapshot of our neighborhood AND the challenge we do face around elections and assessments and dues being paid.

Lots of issues around this ratio question.
Of course.

Some are financial (the issue of higher mortgage rates for homes in high-rental neighborhoods; still valid?).
Some are somewhat stereotypical (the belief that "owners take better care of their homes," again a stereotype, but many will find truth - small or big - in it).

I'm not asking if an HOA board can slow or stop the buy-up of homes by corporations. That's not the question.

The main question: Is there an ideal ratio of homes "owned" [mortgages] by residents to corporations/trusts that then rent out their homes? Thx.

Ideal from whose perspective?

No, there is no "ideal" ratio, although there are some who would say that no rentals at all is best.

Aside from legal or financial requirements, there are local laws and the community's characteristics that will affect how rentals play out in reality. You also have to state whether you are talking about traditional, long-term rentals that are subject to the state's landlord-tenant laws vs. short-term "rentals" that are mostly not regulated and that I do not consider to be rentals at all since the people staying in them are not living there. STRs are hotels/commercial activity, and the community's CC&Rs and zoning laws may not allow these things.

In addition, quiet, well behaved tenants can be indistinguishable from quiet, well behaved owners in terms of their impact on quality of life. They, or their landlords, will have impact on other things, though - such as difficulty in finding enough willing volunteers to serve on the board, thus putting more of a burden on the owner-occupants.

The bottom line is that the interests of owner-occupants and those of landlords do not coincide. Numbers will not capture the extent to which this is true - and you will not arrive at any kind of evaluation of what's optimum by ignoring the non-quantifiable inputs.

There is no ideal ratio, but my experience is that Corp rentals do not participate in HOA matters at all and lead to more apathy. Anything more than 1/3 rentals will typically interfer in getting hoa business done since most governing docs have 2/3 majority needed to pass major changes.

ours is around 25% and I wouldn't want it any higher. If it was less than 10% that would be nice, but the genie is already out of the bottle. I just want to pass a ccr amendment that prevents it from getting any bigger by requiring 2 years before it can be rented out.

To date, I and the campaign teamm - which has a few "pioneers" from the first days, first homes - don't know of any Airbnb or other short term or even "visiting nurse for 6 months" type of rentals here.

Which is a blessing.

The local climate around Airbnb has turned very chilly and Airbnb has clamped down on users who allow
the huge parties that wind up needing police services.

Hoping that remains so.

How is an HOA really supposed to know if X house is owner occupied or a rental? Looking solely at mail to addresses really means nothing unless the mail to address
is a commercial address.

In an Ideal world, the number would be less than 10% rentals and Zero on STR's.

If it is the quality of renters you are seeking to exclude, you can put on the agenda to amend the CC&R's or simply add a rule and reg to your governing documents. It depends on how your CC&R's
are worded. If your CC&R's say the board can make changes to rentals etc then I would add a stipulation like all new rentals must use a real estate agent or rental broker. All rentals must be background
checked, all rentals must read and acknowledge the communities governing documents.

“ in one case a daughter buying a place and her dad living there. Are these rentals ?”

I wouldn’t exactly call it a rental even tho dad is giving daughter rent money . Is there a lease ? Probably not . I wouldn’t call it an “ arms length rental “.

Not sure how many states have something similar, but in Florida owners can take a property tax exemption (homestead) on their primary residence, only one "primary" residence can be designated. This info is public records and can be looked up online, at least in larger counties. This can help determine how many homes are owner occupied, but still doesn't tell which ones are rented. The homes without the exemption could be second homes, vacation homes, vacant, or otherwise not rented out.

As a lawyer told me... The HOA does NOT own your home. It may own the land around it. A HOA would be a "third party" to any lease agreements. IMO a good lawyer can defend an owner whom wants to rent in their HOA despite the "restrictions" a HOA may have in place. That is because one has to go by the STATE laws when factoring in rental restrictions. Which in most states do not exist. There are a few like California and Florida that may have state laws in place to address HOA rental restrictions. Even in those states the old laws are "grandfathered in" in older properties etc...

My rule of thumb is what FHA/PUD form spells out is the acceptable ratio. Once a HOA falls out of that ratio, then expect a few things to happen. 1 is limited loan programs being offered to potential buyers. Meaning FHA/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loans no longer offered. A potential buyer may only be able to do certain type of loans that may have higher interest rates. The 2nd thing is re-financing. That will take a hit. People wanting to refinance may face higher interest rates. Rental may make the HOA look bad to potential buyers.

The best thing a HOA can do? Is to make it that owners whom rent must put in their lease agreements that the renter MUST follow the HOA rules. If this is NOT in their lease agreement, it hurts most parties. The HOA can't evict tenants in many states. They must hold the owner's feet to the floor for their renters violations. The owner can't evict their tenant if it's not in the lease the renter must obey the HOA rules. So the HOA will fine the owner and the owner can't evict or enforce much on their tenant for it. Having that caveat in the lease helps since there are a thing called "Tenant's rights".

When we were looking at amending our rental restriction, the lawyer recommended treating first-degree relatives (parent, child, or sibling) as owners, not tenants. Nothing good can come of interfering in family relationships.

Here's a better link than the one above, which is too cutesy:

Office of Housing, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In short, yes - many forms of housing can be FHA-eligible. The community just has to file the necessary paperwork.

In California, an HOA cannot restrict the number of rentals allowed to less than 25%.