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

User Forum Topic
Submitted by gzz on July 11, 2018 - 2:23pm

Vote is coming up July 16.

https://www.kusi.com/mayor-faulconer-ann...

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.

Submitted by gzz on July 11, 2018 - 2:28pm.

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.

Submitted by gzz on July 11, 2018 - 2:33pm.

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/comm...

Submitted by spdrun on July 11, 2018 - 4:22pm.

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

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 12, 2018 - 10:23am.

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

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?

Submitted by pluto on July 12, 2018 - 11:49am.

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.

Submitted by spdrun on July 12, 2018 - 5:37pm.

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

Submitted by barnaby33 on July 14, 2018 - 11:38am.

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

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 14, 2018 - 10:24pm.

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)

Submitted by SoCalBakerman on July 16, 2018 - 1:31pm.

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.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 16, 2018 - 3:25pm.

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.

Submitted by gzz on July 16, 2018 - 4:07pm.

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.

Submitted by Myriad on July 16, 2018 - 8:07pm.

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/S...

Submitted by njtosd on July 17, 2018 - 1:35am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
....

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.

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

Submitted by barnaby33 on July 17, 2018 - 7:06am.

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

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 17, 2018 - 9:45am.

the us suprene court likely will not have HOAs on the docket either

Submitted by scaredyclassic on July 17, 2018 - 9:48am.

people near me were running somesort of noisy puppy mill. i aint no snitch. eventually they moved. took 5 or 6 yearsyears. fuck it.

dude was an asshole trump supporter too ....fucking puppy mill. all the yipping and howling. i despise dogs, but suffering creatures of any type, even crappy dogs, sets my teeth on edge.

just seems bad to snitch. like itd come back to bite me

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 17, 2018 - 12:41pm.

My experience is not anecdotal either.

People are jealous. It's not that the shorter term renters are not quiet and mind their own business. The long time residents want friends and neighbors they can chit chat with and complain to. It's all about them.

Rich or poor, long time residents think they own the neighborhood and they don't like change because they are afraid of becoming irrelevant or pushed out.

They are just selfish and don't consider the big picture. Home sharing platforms are great innovations in real estate. They allow people to experience staying places that were heretofore unavailable.

For example, you may not afford to buy an oceanfront property. But you could rent one for 1 week to enjoy with your family. Or you could stay in a historic house in Italy.

Now, if you block tourists from coming to your neighborhood, other people will do the same elsewhere. That results in less aggregate travel and experiences for humanity, a net negative. Less "wealth" for everyone.

Submitted by gzz on July 17, 2018 - 1:04pm.

The version that passed yesterday was even worse than the Mayor's proposal I opposed. From what I can tell, vacation rentals are completely banned from the city unless it is someone's primary residence or a secondary unit on the parcel.

So I guess all of Mission Beach will have to be converted to long-term rentals since there are very few people with primary residences there.

Laws like this show the downside of term limits. I am sure the law will be held up for years in litigation, but if it ever takes effect, the giant job loss and giant hole it blows in the city's budget will be someone else's problem.

Losing short-term accommodations of 40,000 units probably holding 100,000 people could cause San Diego hotel rates to skyrocket and cause us to lose ComicCon and other major events. Normal summer rates in San Diego right now, not on special event days, are already $150 a night at Motel 6 type places.

Submitted by Myriad on July 17, 2018 - 1:14pm.

Is there really 40k units for short term rent in SD? What's the reference for that?
The MB change seems to be pretty drastic.
I'm sort of conflicted - I'm a generally a supporter of the free market, but out of town/foreign investors are really driving up prices globally which prevent residents from being able to buy homes. It's not nearly as bad here in SD vs some places like Vancouver.

One of the complaints is that owners won't be able to rent out - which is just false. They still do long term rentals.

Hopefully the city also allows for more hotels and public transit also.

Submitted by Friend on July 17, 2018 - 2:00pm.

Personally, I think the vote passed yesterday was positive and will help to prevent further commercialization of the residential sector. I can definitely see the other side of the discussion though, as it is more restrictive on property owners' rights! However, I haven't seen the data behind loss of tourism, jobs, etc. If anything, this was most likely hurting the hotel industry which is where many jobs are. I wouldn't classify an owner of a STVR with a bottle of Windex a job loss. I've seen this, despite charging massive cleaning fees.

In this current market environment, this important inventory will not sit idle and should benefit renters and prospective homebuyers along with their families.

Submitted by njtosd on July 17, 2018 - 2:38pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
people near me were running somesort of noisy puppy mill. i aint no snitch. eventually they moved. took 5 or 6 yearsyears. fuck it.

dude was an asshole trump supporter too ....fucking puppy mill. all the yipping and howling. i despise dogs, but suffering creatures of any type, even crappy dogs, sets my teeth on edge.

just seems bad to snitch. like itd come back to bite me

We have a maternity tourism place next door. https://www.newsweek.com/feds-raid-mater...

The nice thing is that my daughter's drum set is on that side of the house - so she can practice whenever she wants because, really, what are they going to do? Call the police? (Who, by the way, are aware of this situation, but appear to not want to do anything.)

Submitted by barnaby33 on July 18, 2018 - 5:31am.

Sadly birth tourism isn't illegal. I've had more than a dozen requests for it myself.
Josh

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 18, 2018 - 10:40am.

njtosd wrote:

We have a maternity tourism place next door. https://www.newsweek.com/feds-raid-mater...

The nice thing is that my daughter's drum set is on that side of the house - so she can practice whenever she wants because, really, what are they going to do? Call the police? (Who, by the way, are aware of this situation, but appear to not want to do anything.)

Are they noisy? Do they do anything that bother you?

If they are renting 30 days or more, they are well within city ordinances so there is nothing for the police or code enforcement.

Visa violations are federal matter. You have no way of knowing. You’re just assuming.

I’m with Scaredy. I would not snitch on people

I manage some properties where people don’t behave and I have called the police for loud music and loud parties with marijuana. Now, when people see me, they behave.
I overheard a big fat black woman call me the “faggot snitch”. I think it’s funny because it’s kinda true. I think by faggot she means urbane and well-mannered.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.