The days of AirBnB in MB are numbered.
The city took a significant step toward banning short term vacation rentals Tuesday night.
After hearing from a number of residents who complained of the rentals’ detrimental impact on the community, the council voted unanimously to outlaw rentals of 30 days or less.
“Left unchecked, short-term rentals of residential properties have the potential to change the character and stability of the city’s residential neighborhoods,” staff wrote in its report on the subject. It listed “noise, crime, traffic congestion and consumption of available “ as potential drawbacks of the rentals.
The council must vote again at another council meeting before it can become law.
Property owners who rent to a “single housekeeping unit,” defined as “a traditional family of the functional equivalent of a traditional family,” for more than 30 days won’t be affected.
The council carved out a temporary exception for approximately 57 owners who have been renting their houses with business permits from the city and paying the transient occupancy tax like hotels, although this is technically not allowed in the city’s code, according to City Attorney Quinn Barrow.
They will have a grace period through the end of the year, after which they must follow the same rules as everybody else.
The city would join the city of Santa Monica, which recently banned all short term rentals.
A couple of residents held that city up as an example.
“I am essentially living next door to a hotel right now,” said Heather Rezner. “I have a revolving door of 20-plus people every few days” next door, she said. Her neighbor’s house has “been used as a nightly rental for porn parties” in full view of her children.
“I propose we do what Santa Monica has done,” she said.
Staff had framed Tuesday night’s discussion as evaluating whether to approve an amendment to the city’s zoning that the planning commission passed in May. That amendment would’ve allowed property owners who applied for a license to rent their houses for 30 days or less up to four times a year.
However, the council rejected the commission’s suggestion in favor of an outright ban.
Some members of the public and the council spoke against the planning commission’s proposal as allowing activity they would rather avoid.
“I can’t for the life of me understand why you would want to legalize something commercial in a residential community,” said a resident who didn’t give her name. “I would recommend sticking with the current rule and enforcing it. I think if it’s a residential area, it should stay residential.”
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Burton agreed.
“I don’t think actually now permitting this use makes sense to me,” said Burton. “We should go in the other direction,  ban it and remediate the problem.”
One of the biggest potential problems raised against the amendment passed by the planning commission was how to enforce it.
“It makes me sad your citizens are put in a apposition where we have to go against each other,” said one resident who didn’t give her name.
The council was sympathetic to the 57 who had applied for a license and in at least one case, had already rented out their property for later this year. Although the city attorney said adequate notice had been given for the meeting, the council directed staff to reach out to those owners and their neighbors within 100 feet before the final vote.
“I am concerned the 57 may not realize what is about to happen to what they have been doing for many years,” said Councilmember David Lesser.
Two of those 57 spoke, and said they’d only heard about Tuesday’s meeting by chance.
Kristin Pekarek said she supported the ordinance passed by the planning commission.
“I don’t live in my house anymore, but I would feel the same” as the residents who spoke, she said.
She said that she has asked the houses around hers to notify her if her renters are noisy and makes her renters sign a contract agreeing to pay a certain amount if the neighbors complain.
Both she and another woman, who said her property was listed on the website Vacation Rentals by Owner and declined to give her name to a reporter, said banning rentals would hurt the town’s economy.
“I think it’s very shortsighted to not think about the negative impact on the city,” said the woman. She listed restaurants, shops and bike rentals among those who would suffer.
“Let’s face it: This city does not have a lot of hotels,” she said.
She suggested a ban could have more unintended consequences, such more long term rentals or people trying to sell their houses.
The council would be able to amend its proposed ban before its final vote. In that case, it would have to have another reading before having its final vote. ER
