Well said.
It will go underground

Do you live at the beach? If yes, you are ok with mini-hotels operating next door?

I am guessing the answer to both questions is no. I have seen you post about OB real estate, so I suspect you own some properties that are rented as STVR (illegally). The residential zoning laws are clear about transient occupancy, it is not allowed. For many years, due to the technology, the zoning laws have been skirted by “home sharing”. The “home sharing” has been thoroughly abused to the point where houses and condos in residential zones are turning over occupants ever few days, year-round. If you took the risk of buying a home in a residential area and running it as a hotel because zoning laws were not enforced, that was your decision. Don’t expect the laws to change now, and you should have foreseen some sort of regulation coming.

WRT MB, I suspect some consideration will be made for those that were paying the transient occupancy tax before the new AirBnB ban. For those that bought homes in MB (or other beaches) residential areas and planned to run them as hotels illegally, I do not feel bad. Believe it or not, a decade or so ago there was still a lot of residents in MB. Even a school!

WRT hurting property values, the beach area prices were getting inflated because people were making purchase price decision based on operating them as illegal STVR’s which pencil out to much higher cap rates. I am ok with prices normalizing to what the local population will bear. I own in OB and have thought about going the STVR route, but I couldn’t do it to our neighbors and was adverse to the risk of entering an unregulated STVR market. Now that the policy has been clarified, I hope it is enforced appropriately, I may consider a granny flat AirBnB with confidence that I am operating within the law.

I am sure you are right, people will still try to skirt the law, but that is not my thing. Probably the people that are most likely to operate their STVR underground in the future are the same ones that bought residences expecting to be able to operate them as hotels, when clearly the zoning did not allow it.

Just my $0.02 …

As a long time resident, I would think you would want to keep your neighborhood zoned as residential. Enforcing existing zoning laws is not “trying to take away rights of every property owner in San Diego”. I feel the opposite, people skirting laws by illegally running STVR are taking away my rights to a residential zoned property that I purchased.

gzz, what would your recommendation for STVR rentals be? Mine recommendation would have been to limit the number of STVR per neighborhood and make operators get licensed and pay fees. The limit would be set so that OB never gets to the point where 44% of homes are STVR’s, like MB, but more like %5 or less. However, I am happy with the recent decision to keep our residential neighborhoods for the actual residents, and this solution probably requires less regulation than what I suggested.

PS: I despise regulation and big government in general, but I do believe zoning laws should be enforced and any changes to them taken seriously. The unregulated STVR market was getting out of hand.

I’m not sure that’s really a valid argument. Lots of things are not explicitly identified in the Constitution – especially when you get to the local level detail of managing a city or town. There’s nothing about delegating power to a city council or a county recording office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_Realty_Co.
“In short the court ruled that zoning ordinances, regulations and laws must find their justification in some aspect of police power and asserted for the public welfare.”
So derived local power from the 14th amendment.

My take is that outside of a few areas of the city, there is pretty minimal impact. It will be interesting to see Mission Beach in a few years.

I’m only surprised that the STVR that properly registered with the city were not grandfathered in. All the others that didn’t follow the rules or didn’t bother to find out, they were essentially illegally running a business.
By buying a property and registering at the county recorder’s, a buyer is acquiescing to the right of the city’s municipal code which includes the zoning rules. Otherwise, they should have taken a court case to argue before buying – though unlikely to succeed due to stare decisis.

Nuisance is not the same as government limiting how long you can enter into contract to lease your property.

ST renters may be more considerate that long term renters. Wait until there is a nuisance such as noise, then complain; but don’t abridge property rights which are clearly protected, not dirived, in the Constitution

How does a one week lease on its own create a nuissance? So why outlaw it? You guys who are against don’t stand on principle. You just want to social engineer your ideas of a neighborhood. It’s all me, me, me.

What if the short term renters are quiet writers or academics? Are they a nuisance?

The ban is new law. Not enforcement of existing laws. Why not enforce existing nuisance laws?

Remenber, short term leases don’t cause problems. People cause problems.

I’m confident things with change with technology and acceptance by the younger generations. It could however take a long, long time.

Like I said before, if you want to close your neighborhood to ST renters, others will do the same to you. What if you want to spend some time at a nice home in Santa Barbara or the French wine country to relax for 3 weeks? That option could be closed off — net loss for humanity.