San Diego Union-Tribune (Sunday)
SHORT-TERM RENTALS
Our panel of economists and executives considers whether the city of San Diego should limit the number of units.
ECONOMISTS NO
Balancing needs of both property owners and residents is a challenging task. The Planning Commission proposal seems like a reasonable compromise for both sides of the contentious issue, although cutting the number of short-term rentals by 50 percent and allocating them by lottery is fraught with problems. Whichever way the city council decides, the regulation will likely be challenged in court. The citizens of San Diego will need to vote to explicitly amend the city charter.
YES
Reducing the number of short-term vacation rentals would have two positive results. First, it would reduce some of the negative aspects of those rentals, such as noise, less stable communities, etc. Second, it would make more long-term housing available, which would help in terms of housing affordability. Any revenue the city may lose from the transit occupancy tax would be made up for by revenue from increased hotel occupancy when that is allowed again.
NO
Where does this 50 percent quota come from, and whose interest does it serve to use a lottery to allocate it? If parties and noise are the problem, I say address those directly. Temporary rentals should require a license that prohibits parties of more than eight people or excessive noise from the guests. Any violation of those terms should result in a big fine for the owner and possible revocation of the license.
YES
The proposal seems to be a reasonable compromise, balancing the benefits of property owners receiving vacation rental income versus the harms that may be imposed on homeowners experiencing disruptive behavior. Those homeowners also argue that vacation rentals convert residential to commercial zoning, undermining their home investments. While the city may lose taxes on home vacation rentals, those losses should be offset by higher hotel bookings. Resolution, rather than ongoing uncertainty, over this issue would be a clear positive.
EXECUTIVES YES
This seems like a reasonable compromise that will avoid residential family neighborhoods from turning into party sites. It should also be reviewed annually. I do however care less about the number of houses that are open to Airbnb than the minimum length. A one or two night minimum is an invitation to party time. A five to seven day commitment is families looking to have a vacation with the kids near the beach.
YES
Residential zoning should be restricted to permanent housing, as opposed to allowing vacation rentals. Beyond the disruption the short-term rentals bring with a revolving door of strangers, they destabilize neighborhoods and reduce needed permanent housing supply. San Diego hotels offer a range of accommodations — from single rooms to mini residential suites — all situated in the city’s desired vacation spots. Limiting vacation rentals is a good first step. They should ultimately be banned from residential areas.
NO
This has been a contentious issue for several years. On one hand you understand that there needs to be regulations, especially for the rentals that are consistently noisy, host loud parties, or are destructive. But on the other hand, the city shouldn’t infringe on a property owner’s ability to rent their property either on a long-term or short-term basis. Instead of restricting the number of rentals available, the city should focus more on enforcement as outlined in the measure.
YES
Short-term rentals have some “negative effects,” including on the housing market, livability, social cohesion, safety, and a level playing field for other providers of such accommodations. Fifty percent is a fair and reasonable number to allow some short-term rentals given that some owners of real estate use this income to support themselves. This new approach would not allow for multiple units, which would create a business model of a hotel without any regulation.