San Diego homeowners, tell the Mayor and your councilman to oppose the vacation rental law

[gzz]

Vote is coming up July 16.

Mayor Faulconer announces short-term rental regulations for San Diego

They want to throw on a $949 per year tax and all sorts of other restrictions on vacation rentals.

Thus a restriction on property rights, a tax increase, a blow to tourism and the jobs it creates, and could really hurt the real estate market and construction. Possibly thousands of short-term rentals would have to be converted to long-term, all at once.

Even if you don’t do STVR (I don’t, tried it for a few months years ago, too much work!), the mayor’s proposal will hurt all property values and all landlords and homeowners.

[gzz]

I knew anecdotally that most AirBNBs are owned by people who have 10-100 units. The law will restrict people to just their primary home plus one more. So suddenly you’ll have them in some cases selling, in other cases scrambling for renters, in other cases even giving them up to banks or short-selling.

The market seems healthy enough right now that I don’t think it will crash or anything. But we could easily see the past few years of 7% property value growth fall back to 0% or 3%. And very sad for all the jobs lost.

[gzz]

If this does pass, the Coastal Commission can block it or at least make it less bad. Happened in Del Mar already. So write them too if it passes!

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-short-rentals-20180614-story.html

[spdrun]

Hope it does pass — kicking property price inflation down to nearly zero would be a healthy breath of relief.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Hope it does pass — kicking property price inflation down to nearly zero would be a healthy breath of relief.[/quote]

Why so anti progress? Are you sure you don’t belong with the geriatrics?

I am big support of new tech like Airbnb that make the markets more efficient. Why have iddle real estate when someone could be paying and enjoying?

[pluto]

It is not a restriction on property rights you can still do STVRs. It is not a tax increase it’s a use tax. Don’t want to pay it give a 6 month lease, go month to month. It will have an impact on tourism just not a significant impact. People did not say the would not attend comic con because the hotel prices were 15 dollars cheaper. How can it hurt the real estate market and construction market? The real estate market is in high demand and continues. If the homes do hit all at once, it really is built up inventory and the market is correcting. Construction is booming. Just not in SFH.

Again what incentive does council have to vote it down because one extremely minority segment of the city has to change the length of its contract? I just don’t see what arguments other than people wont have Airbnb in the city or side money for an investor.

[spdrun]

I’m not anti-progress, I’m pro-chaos. Chaos == opportunity.

[barnaby33]

Being anti STR doesn’t make one anti-progress. Cancer is growth, just not the kind anyone wants. Why is it a property rights issue? It is the STR crowd that has attempted to re-define (using a technology platform) use of space and neighborhoods. They haven’t done so for any high and mighty moral reasons, they’ve done it to make money.

I have always been either ambivalent or against whole home rentals because if you aren’t there then stuff happens and your neighbors get to bare the brunt of it. That’s just another form of privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
Josh

[FlyerInHi]

Property rights means you should be able to rent for however long you wish. The neighbors don’t have a say in that as long as the tenants behave.

Id rather have short term rentals than neighbors who are pack rats and have plants and junk all over. STRs are usually well maintained.

Also, if the city is going to enforce STRs, why not crack down on roommates also. Isn’t there an ordinance against that?

The high and mighty reason is economic efficiency and not letting resources go iddle. If new technologies allow real estate to operate 24/7 for different uses, then society benefits as a whole in improved productivity (more people get to enjoy and use that same space)

[SoCalBakerman]

Since the value of your property is solely based on the government restrictions, then it follows that the government can tell you what you can do to your property.

We don’t let people open machine shops in residential neighborhoods because that would be a nuisance and diminish the value of everyones property next to it.

Since land is a scarce commodity unless you know how create more of it, then it should be regulated very highly and should not be viewed as any other productive item like machines or the internet or even the stock market.

[FlyerInHi]

Several things:

Short term rental don’t change the use of the community. It’s just the length of the rent periods.

The constitution says that the taken away of property must be compensated. Zoning is taking away in so many ways and arguably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court may reverse zoning decisions that were perhaps needed in an industrial economy but are no longer needed in a knowledge economy. Times change.

Mixed uses actually increase value because services are all located nearby. Like in a European village where bakeries, groceries, even mechanics are located within walking distance. The auto centered, suburban development model could be seen as an aberration in human development.

[gzz]

That’s just another form of privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Josh, owner-occupiers and long-term rentals generate very little revenue for San Diego. Many cities try to stop new residential development in favor of commercial, because at least they get sales taxes that way.

Vacation rentals however generate a ton of money from the hotel tax. A $150/night AirBNB will pay about $5500 a year in hotel taxes. And visitors also spend a lot more per day than locals, so more sales tax there too.

Flyer, for a zoning restriction to become a government taking, it needs to almost completely destroy the value of a land. They are very hard cases to win.

I agree with you that a mix of small scale commercial inside residential zones is best for people’s health, for the environment, and for long-term property values. Overall central and coastal San Diego does a good job with mixing them together. I would not like living in a suburb where there are nothing but houses and maybe a small school within a 3-mile easy walk range.

[Myriad]

wow… wasn’t expecting the rules to be tightened so much.
Even Mission Bay is covered – wondering what it would look like as an actual community vs bunch of rentals

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Short-Term-Vacation-Rental-Two-Proposals-San-Diego-City-Council-Meetin-488278091.html

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi] ….

The Supreme Court may reverse zoning decisions that were perhaps needed in an industrial economy but are no longer needed in a knowledge economy. Times change.

Mixed uses actually increase value because services are all located nearby. Like in a European village where bakeries, groceries, even mechanics are located within walking distance. The auto centered, suburban development model could be seen as an aberration in human development.[/quote]

Just checking in and sure enough Brian is still here spouting crap. You better hope it’s NOT a knowledge economy.

[barnaby33]

Brian you’ve said one thing that is true, times change. However it is absolutely a fundamental democratic right for citizens to try to resist that change, avoid being the targets of its externalities or in some cases advocate for even more rapid change. It all comes down to who’s ox is being gored.

Renting rooms in ones home had always been an accepted practice. Generally people who are tied to a place, even month to month, are more respectful. Your property rights do not extend to visibly lowering your neighbors standard of living.

My experience in these matters is not anecdotal.
Josh

[Author]

Posts