Dear Members of the North Myrtle Beach City Council, 

 

As a property owner and small business operator in North Myrtle Beach, I am deeply concerned about the proposed requirement for short-term rental (STR) owners to use local property management companies. This policy would significantly harm property owners, damage the tourism industry, and fail to address the issues it claims to solve. 

 

 

 

1. Tourism Drives the City’s Economy:

North Myrtle Beach’s tourism industry contributes billions annually to the local economy, generating critical tax revenue and supporting small businesses. Events like Bike Week and the city’s thriving vacation rental market are essential to this success. 

 

However, forcing STR owners to work with poorly performing property management companies jeopardizes guest satisfaction, reduces repeat visitors, and ultimately harms the city’s reputation. 

 

2. Proximity Does Not Equal Quality: 

The proposed mandate assumes that physical proximity ensures better guest service, but this is simply not true. Effective management is determined by: 

- Vetting guests based on prior reviews and clear communication. 

- Timely responses to guest issues, including noise complaints. 

- Collaborating with a reliable, local team for cleaning and maintenance. 

 

All of these can be successfully managed by virtual operators, many of whom have local teams on the ground. Forcing STR owners to hire local property managers with poor reviews undermines guest experiences and penalizes responsible operators who have proven they can manage remotely with excellence. 

 

3. Local Property Management Companies Lack Accountability

The companies lobbying for this mandate—such as Big Fish Rentals and Vacasa—are not the solution. Their documented histories include: 

- Withheld security deposits. 

- Charges for pre-existing damage. 

- Unresponsive customer service. 

- Substandard cleanliness and maintenance practices. 

 

These companies do not provide the quality of service needed to protect North Myrtle Beach’s tourism industry. 

 

4. Financial Burden on Property Owners

Most STR owners already face significant expenses, including high HOA fees, property taxes, and maintenance costs. Adding $6,000 or more annually for mandatory property management services will make rentals financially unsustainable for many owners, forcing them to sell their properties. 

 

Moreover, local property management companies: 

- Often delay payments to owners, typically disbursing funds only once a month. 

- Fail to disclose guest fees, making rentals less competitive and transparent. 

 

This financial burden will drive out small property owners, reduce the availability of STRs, and harm the city’s tourism revenue. 

 

5. Affordable Noise Control Solutions Exist

If noise complaints are a concern, there are effective, affordable solutions available. Equipment like Minut monitors decibel levels and alerts property managers or owners in real-time about potential noise issues. These devices resemble smoke detectors, are easy to install, and are far less expensive than being forced to use a property management company. 

 

By adopting such tools, property owners can proactively manage noise concerns without compromising their rights or profitability. 

 

6. Violation of Property Owner Rights:

Property owners should not be forced to relinquish control over their homes. Many have built successful businesses with reliable local teams who provide exceptional service, resulting in higher-quality guest experiences than larger property management companies. 

 

Mandating the use of third-party companies—especially those with a track record of poor performance—violates the rights of homeowners and undermines the STR ecosystem that has flourished thanks to platforms like Airbnb and VRBO. 

 

7. Proposed Solutions

Instead of mandating the use of local property management companies, the city should: 

- Allow property owners to self-manage or work with co-hosts who can demonstrate accountability and high-quality service. 

- Address noise and compliance concerns through performance-based measures, such as timely response requirements for complaints. 

- Vet all property managers—local or otherwise—to ensure they meet strict quality standards, including reviews, responsiveness, and transparency. 

 

Conclusion

North Myrtle Beach’s economy and reputation rely on a thriving short-term rental market. Mandating poorly reviewed property management companies will harm property owners, diminish guest experiences, and negatively impact the city’s tourism industry. 

 

This proposed ordinance for short-term rentals (STRs) in North Myrtle Beach poses significant challenges for local mom-and-pop businesses, fails to address the core issue of noise complaints, and places unrealistic demands on local property management companies. Here's why:

 

 

 

1. Negative Impact on Local Mom-and-Pop Businesses

- Financial Burden: The $250 annual permit fee adds an extra expense to small businesses already operating on tight margins. For individual owners who may only rent seasonally or part-time, this fee could discourage participation or force them out of the market.

- Favoring Larger Operators: The emphasis on licensing and professional management requirements for local responsible parties (LRPs) favors larger, well-funded property management companies over smaller, locally owned operations.

- Barrier to Entry: Requiring LRPs to obtain additional licensing could make it harder for smaller operators or family-run businesses to compete, consolidating control under large property management firms.

 

2. Failure to Address the Noise Problem

- Noise Awareness Technology Optional: While "Noise Aware" technology is mentioned, it is optional. Without making noise monitoring mandatory, the ordinance does little to directly tackle the primary issue of noise complaints.

- Lack of Specific Enforcement Details: The proposal focuses on broad enforcement mechanisms but doesn't provide clarity on how noise violations will be specifically addressed, leaving the problem unresolved.

- Burden on LRPs: Requiring LRPs to respond to complaints within 30-60 minutes places the responsibility on individuals rather than providing a systemic solution. This reactive approach does not prevent or minimize noise issues proactively.

 

 

 

3. Strain on Local Property Management Companies

-Unmanageable Workload: 

Adding approximately 5,400 registered units into the system, many requiring physical inspections and ongoing oversight, will overwhelm local property management companies. These businesses lack the staff and resources to meet the proposed standards while maintaining quality service.

- Unrealistic Response Expectations: The requirement for LRPs to respond within 30-60 minutes is impractical for many small property management firms. This creates a higher likelihood of penalties or revoked permits for STR owners who cannot meet these demands.

- Quality of Service at Risk: The influx of STRs and the requirement for inspections and enforcement will stretch local property managers thin, leading to a decline in service quality, dissatisfaction among owners, and negative guest experiences.

 

We would like to bring to your attention the significant economic implications that could arise from the consolidation of property management services within the city limits by a few major operators. Should such entities assume management responsibilities on a large scale, they are likely to prioritize their internal staff or contractors—often at minimum wage—over local, independent service providers. This practice would directly displace small-scale, independent cleaners, handymen, and other local service providers who rely on self-managing Airbnb owners and small co-hosts for their livelihoods. 

 

Currently, these independent operators benefit from arrangements with smaller-scale vacation rental managers, who pay them a fair and sustainable wage. However, with larger property management companies dominating the market, this dynamic will shift, resulting in the loss of critical income for these individuals. This economic disruption is particularly concerning given the seasonal nature of the local tourism economy. Many local cleaners and handymen rely on the high-income opportunities provided during the busy season to sustain them through the slower months, during which work is already scarce. 

 

The reduction in income for these workers would exacerbate existing challenges within the local economy, potentially leading to further closures of small businesses, such as restaurants and retail establishments, which are already vulnerable during the off-season. Such an economic downturn would not only affect individual livelihoods but would also have broader implications for the financial health and sustainability of North Myrtle Beach’s local economy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Critique

- High Costs, Low Return: While the city anticipates $1.35 million in revenue, the $1 million in yearly expenses minimizes the financial benefit. Hiring third-party vendors like GovOS shifts funds out of the local economy, which could otherwise support community businesses and services.

- No Real Problem Solving: The ordinance places administrative burdens on property owners and managers without solving the root issues of noise, trash, and parking that affect community quality of life.

- Exclusion of Small Businesses: Local mom-and-pop STR operators, who are vital to the community and local economy, face higher barriers to entry and increased operating costs, while larger firms may absorb these changes more easily.

 

Recommendations

Instead of focusing on punitive measures and outsourcing enforcement, the city should:

1. Promote collaboration with local stakeholders to design policies that directly address noise and community concerns without penalizing small businesses.

2. Invest in preventative solutions like mandatory noise monitoring technology for all STRs.

3. Develop a phased rollout plan to ensure local property managers can scale up without compromising service quality. 

 

 

 

 

We urge the city to consider the unintended consequences of these changes on local employment and small business viability. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and focus on solutions that protect property owner rights, uphold quality standards, and support the city’s long-term economic success.  Supporting policies and practices that protect smaller operators and local service providers is essential to maintaining the economic stability and community character of North Myrtle Beach.