by Macy Hurwitz

May 23, 2012

Do you like this?

The Austin Planning Commission ended a lengthy discussion of a proposed short-term rental ordinance with a recommendation to the Austin City Council on May 22. There were a number of people in the audience who spoke to the commission, including several from the Austin Rental Alliance, about the possible effects of the ordinance on their homes, neighborhoods and businesses.

"I understand that some homeowners don't want people in their community who are not full-time residents, but we cannot legislate who our neighbors are," audience member Cynthia Reynolds said.

A short-term rental is defined as a single-family residential structure rented for a period of between one and 30 consecutive days. The new use would be allowed in any single-family residential use zoning category, and anyone providing STRs would be required to register with the city.

Property owners of STRs would be required to pay a hotel occupancy tax (HOT), provide contact information to both the city and any renters, and accept liability for damages resulting from renters' actions, according to city documents. Renters would be required to comply with occupancy limits, noise restrictions, parking restrictions, prohibition of gatherings, trash collection schedules, and burn bans and watering restrictions,

Though the recommendation presented by staff limited homestead homes offering STRs to 90 days per year, the commissioners voted to add an amendment lifting that limitation if the property owner lives on-site more than 276 days per year.

Commercial STRs—or properties not occupied by an owner—spurred much more heated discussion, both from audience members and the commissioners themselves. Commercial STRs would be required to undergo an initial safety inspection prior to licensing and another inspection per subsequent three-year cycle.

The Austin Rental Alliance is a nonprofit trade organization that represents the interests of property owners, property managers, management companies and other interested parties. The organization requires all of its members to pay the appropriate HOT taxes and works to promote compliance with all other code requirements.

ARA members argued that excessive regulation would push STRs underground, cheating the city out of HOT taxes. City of Austin planning staff representative Robert Heil said regulation through the STR ordinance was not an appropriate way to address neighborhood concerns about nuisance violations.

"The issue is that nuisance behaviors are not necessarily tied to the duration of the lease," Heil said. "Bad behaviors exist and nuisance behaviors exist whether it's a short-term rental, a long-term rental or an owner-occupied building."

"Such business use is not legal land use under the land development code. It never has been, it should not be now, nor should it in the future," Austin Neighborhoods Council President Steven Aleman said.

Commission Parliamentarian Danette Chimenti said she thought STRs were a good way for homeowners to help pay for their properties when they lived on-site. She also said she knows there are good STR owners, and she empathized with property owners wanting to make money with their property, but she did not think commercial STRs were a good idea.

"I think it is a commercial use, and it doesn't have a place in single-family residential zoning," Chimenti said.

The ordinance would prohibit two commercial STRs from being within 1,000 feet of each other, something several of the commissioners said would be difficult to enforce.

In the end, the ordinance passed on a 6-0 vote, with commissioners Richard Hatfield, Alfonso Hernandez and Dave Anderson abstaining. The commissioners added three amendments to the ordinance to be sent on to the City Council for the final consideration.

One amendment would strip licensing of any STR receiving three or more verified confirmed violations. The second amendment lifted the limit on the number of days owner-occupied STRs could be rented from 90 per year, so long as the owner lived on-site for more than 276 days of the year. The third amendment took out the body of the portion of the ordinance dealing with non-conforming properties, allowing for grandfathering, and left only the heading as a placeholder for the council to work on.

The council will hold a public hearing on the issue May 24 and is expected to vote at the June 7 meeting.

by Macy Hurwitz

May 23, 2012

Latest Comments

  • Speculators Cry for Bailout—from Austin Neighborhoods

    Isn't it ironic? We’ve got some capitalist speculators in Austin that wants bailouts—for themselves. At your expense.

    They want you to be forced to accept inserting commercial businesses into your neighborhood, possibly right next door to you. These commercial businesses are boutique hotels, also known as commercial short term rentals—homes bought as investments to use as hotels that rent out for less than thirty days, often for a weekend at a time. This is illegal and always has been. But, there was a public hearing on this topic at city council last week and five council members voted on first reading to allow this. We need to speak up and halt this.

    All the new condo towers downtown do not allow short term rentals. Having short term renters displace residents who are committed, long-term neighbors is disruptive and harms quality of life. And, again, it's illegal. It's not fair to change the rules after the game has started.

    It's a land use/zoning issue:
    1. Stability of neighborhoods, schools, and churches- CSTR's reduce the number of citizens in a neighborhood who create the fabric of society.
    2. Citizen safety in neighborhoods- CSTR's customers are not residents. These customers constantly come and go, so residents no longer know who belongs in the neighborhood. The result is neighborhood crime watch programs are weakened.
    3. The loss of voting, contributing citizens of Austin- neighbors get pushed out and are replaced with CSTR customers.
    4. Housing costs increase for all Austin citizens- CSTR's reduce the supply of housing stock and drive up prices.
    5. And a vote by 5 council members leads to undermining the city's new master plan- CSTR's violate multiple tenets of Imagine Austin, the new upcoming Austin comprehensive plan that the city council will be approving within weeks.

    CSTR's destroy the quality of life and existence of a neighborhood by converting homes into boutique hotels. CSTR's remove neighbors from neighborhoods. You lose the potential to have a friend, crime watcher, neighborhood volunteer.

    If this isn't stopped, our neighborhoods will be turned into commercial boutique hotel zones. The number of CSTR's in Austin are increasing dramatically. There are currently between 2,000 and 3,000 short term rentals in Austin. They may all turn to CSTR's depending on the city council's action.

    CSTR's are banned from New York City to Chicago, Telluride, San Francisco and Napa. From Oahu to Portland, Santa Monica, Phoenix to the Florida Keys. Even right here in Rollingwood they are illegal.

    Just ask yourself: do you want a commercial short term rental property next door to you and your home? Do you want strangers constantly coming and going from the house next door

    Tell city council to do the right thing and keep commercial short term rentals illegal.


    Posted by Kevin Wier June 11, 2012 10:36:50

  • Short term rentals ARE rentals

    "If the Commissioners had actually banned the commercial use of residential properties, then the properties would be sold at a reasonable price to young families who wish to live in Central Austin. As it is, ARA keeps the house prices artificially high and young families head out to Pflugerville, Manor, even Lampassas, where they can have a yard for the children. "
    This is such an obvious fallacy I don't know where to begin: The ASSUMPTION that IF a property were not to be a STR, it would automatically be sold at a 'reasonable' price to a young family with children flies in the face of the fact that the areas in which short term rentals are located are typically 'high rent districts.' In fact, many people who own STRs use them to help pay the very high property taxes brought about by the high land values in the area, on their own homesteads. The typical short-term rental landlord LIVES in Austin, within less than 5 miles of their property, and further owns only 1 or 2 properties USED as a STR.
    The fact is, most young families could not afford these properties, regardless if they were being sold to owner-occupants or landlords of long-term rentals. The aging of the populations of these areas means that fewer children of school age live there; fewer children means less need for schools (another gripe of opponents).

    STRs fill a desperate need in the community. Austin works to become a destination city for tourism: SXSW, F1, etc; but does not have accommodations for the tourists. The opponents (a small, but as usual vocal minority) are calling this a 'commercial' use. In truth, STRs actually flux from short term (less than 30 days) to long-term and back. Keeping up with the useage is literally unenforceable. Furthermore, a rental is a rental. I hope no one will suggest that every rental is a commercial use of property, because about 53% of the living units in Austin ARE rentals.

    Enrollment of the owners or responsible managers for contact purposes, payment of the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT), and a packet of information for renters including the Codes applicable to the property would seem to be a sensible way to go. NOT onerous, time-consuming, bureaucracy-increasing, regulations that will make honest landlords into criminals if they aren't in compliance with various restrictions. Private property rights should be respected. Public needs are met by existing Codes.

    Posted by Gareth Ellzey May 25, 2012 19:09:49

  • STRs

    Francis Campbell - a loud drunk or a sex offender wearing an ankle bracelet can sign a lease and live next door to you as long as the landlord allows him/her to.

    Please point us to the law, statute or ordinance that states that an STR is a "public accomodation."

    Rental properties must have smoke alarms. They are not required to have "fire suppression systems," fire doors or fire extinguishers. People who have STRs do not want their property to burn down any more than the renter.

    Owner-occupied STRs are appropriately being given different treatment.

    Your observations have no basis, and it's very naive to believe that STRs are the only way you may have a (temporary!) bad neighbor. A loud, drunk sex offender can buy the house next door to you.

    Posted by LNR May 24, 2012 10:29:25

  • This is not the compete story

    You have overlooked the fact that families with children do not want to have strangers next door -- perhaps even sexual predators or people wearing a GPS ankle bracelet placed by police. They do not want to have their children awaken at midnight when the drunks come noisily rolling home at midnight.

    If the Commissioners had actually banned the commercial use of residential properties, then the properties would be sold at a reasonable price to young families who wish to live in Central Austin. As it is, ARA keeps the house prices artificially high and young families head out to Pflugerville, Manor, even Lampassas, where they can have a yard for the children.

    You forgot to mention that in Allandale, with only 8 transient rental properties, there has been a fire after the tenants left, two home invasions where the tenants went to the wrong home and tried to evict the lawful owners during dinner! You forgot to talk about the van loads of drunks arriving after midnight trying to figure which property that they have rented by going door to door and waking the neighbors.

    You forgot to mention that STRs are "public accommodations" under American Disabilities Act and yet few, if any, comply with ADA. However, B&Bs and hotels and motels comply.

    You forgot that the STRs do not have fire suppression systems and fire doors or fire extinguishers, even though some of the rentals are finished attics that will be difficult to egress in the event of a fire.

    It is doubtful that the owners of these transient rental properties have the correct coverage to cover injury or death of a renter in the event of a fire or other catastrophy. They are quite likely to have bought homeowners insurance which will be unlikely to pay off when the insurer finds out that the property was being rented on a regular basis and the owner was not resident.

    Renters should demand proof of insurance coverage. They should demand fire suppression, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors. The life you save may be your own or your spouse's.

    Posted by Francis Campbell May 23, 2012 22:39:48

Add your thoughts

  

All comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Please do not post the same comment more than once.

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

CTA Recent Comments
At the Capitol
Impact Deals
Like us!
Central Austin Twitter
    PDF Archives for CTA
    Now Hiring