You knew this was coming, sooner or later:
Most Airbnb and other short-term rentals would be banned in San Diego under a proposal released this week by the City Council president.
The proposal would make a simple definition change in the city’s municipal code: Visitors and tourists would be reclassified as transients if they rent a home for less than 30 days.
Under the proposal, a home could not be rented to transients for less than 30 days in most single-family zones of the city. In a multifamily zone, renters would have to stay at least seven days, Council President Sherri Lightner said.
In addition, renters or owners of single-family homes could not rent out a room or space for less than seven days. Areas that allow visitor accommodations would be permitted to have short-term rentals.
If the rule change goes into effect, the municipal code appears to levy a $2,500 fine per violation and a maximum of $250,000 per parcel of land for violations.
“The purpose and intent of the residential zone is for residents,” Lightner said.
The council is expected to take up the measure at a special meeting Tuesday.
San Francisco-based Airbnb, the largest service that books rentals in San Diego, says it has 4,900 “hosts” within city limits, 67% of whom rent out an entire home, 30% a private space in a home and 3% a shared space.
Amy Faucett, chief operating officer of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, called on the council to reject the proposal and wait for stakeholders to reach a consensus.
“From a business community standpoint … we all agree it needs to be regulated,” Faucett said at a news conference Wednesday. “You can’t have irresponsible operators in neighborhoods.”
Councilman Chris Cate told reporters that the measure would push short-term rentals “underground, further complicating any regulation and enforcement by the city.” He’d prefer to institute fees, fines and permits to regulate short-term rentals.
Some speakers at Wednesday’s news conference said banning short-term rentals could hurt small business and make housing less affordable.
“I depend on Airbnb to help me live in my place,” said Alicia Sacks, 70, who rents out a futon in her home for about $40 a night. She said she survives on about $620 per month from Social Security and pays more than $800 in rent.
Read full article here:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airbnb-san-diego-20161027-story.html
Marijuana dispensaries are banned too. I guess they just wanted to remove any remaining doubt regarding their irrelevance.
It makes sense to restrict hotels/motels operating in residential neighborhoods.
Or at least force AirBnB participants to operate their businesses by the same rules/regulations as hotels/motels. Since that’s basically what they are running.
Either that or allow hotel/motel chains to open up smack dab in the middle of residential neighborhoods.
I think what legislators are missing is the distinction between people who run AirBNB rentals as a full-time business, and those who go on vacation occasionally and want to short-term rent their homes while gone.
I can understand someone not wanting a constant stream of short-term renters next to their home at the beach, but I don’t like to see a blanket law like this negatively affecting the other class I mentioned.
Tax and license the owners…not much else to do except outright ban.
There have been vacation and short term rentals in popular tourist areas since tourism began, and websites that cater to them for almost 2 decades. I’m wondering what has generated such a huge backlash right now? Was Airbnb perceived as too arrogant and/or too big for its britches? People angry about missing out on housing profiteering? Or a more general frustration with high housing costs in popular areas?
They had two options:
1.) Craft a solution, which is hard.
2.) Ban / do nothing, which is easy.
Standing on principle and watching failure occur is always the easiest route.