Legislating in a Year of Local Elections
Last night, the local law imposing a nine-month moratorium on all new short-term rental facilities was laid on the desks of the Common Council. The possibility of a moratorium has been mentioned many times in Legal Committee meetings, but yesterday was the first time anyone other than Alderman John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward), who chairs the Legal Committee, and city attorney Andy Howard had actually seen the law. Rosenthal acknowledged the proposed law "was not properly vetted in committee, because Andy was away," but insisted that the law be moved forward. When Alderman Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) protested, "No one has seen this," Rosenthal responded, "They are seeing it now."
Alderman Dominic Merante moved to refer the proposed law back to committee, a motion that was seconded by Volo. When the Council voted on the motion, aldermen Rob Bujan (First Ward) and Eileen Halloran (Fifth Ward) joined Merante and Volo in support of sending the law back to the Legal Committee, but the other six aldermen [Kamal Johnson (First Ward), Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward), Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward), Calvin Lewis (Third Ward), Shershah Mizan (Third Ward), and Rosenthal] and Council president Tom DePietro, who usually makes a point of not voting unless there is a tie, voted against referring it back to committee. So, the law was laid on the aldermen's desks and sent to the county Planning Board for review and recommendation.
The urgency of needing to halt the development of short-term rentals, often referred to simply as "Airbnbs," has become a theme in the political discourse in Hudson. Interviewed on WAMC just after the Democratic primary, Kamal Johnson, who won the Democratic mayoral primary, said, "My original plan was to run in two years, but after seeing, basically I'll start with my street, Union Street, I don't have a lot of neighbors anymore, so I'm like 'in two years would there even be a city of actual constituents who live here?'" When asked by the interviewer, Dave Lucas, where "all these neighbors" have gone, Johnson replied, "They've been priced out because housing is way too high. There's an epidemic of short-term rentals.…"
In pursuing the moratorium, the Council seems not to be heeding those who urged that they study the potential economic consequences of such action or warned that limiting short-term rentals would have little impact on the affordable housing problem in Hudson. After the law was laid on the aldermen's desks, DePietro reminded those opposed to the action that "this [law] still has a long way to go."
The entire discussion of the moratorium and the rest of last night's Common Council meeting can be seen in Dan Udell's video, which was posted on YouTube this morning. Click here to view it.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK
Mr. Johnson should study the analysis of short term rentals that has been provided to him before he plays fast and loose with the facts. Said he, "My original plan was to run in two years, but after seeing, basically I'll start with my street, Union Street, I don't have a lot of neighbors anymore, so I'm like 'in two years would there even be a city of actual constituents who live here?"
ReplyDeleteThere are two registered short -term rentals on his block, the 200 block of Union Street, one of which has been inactive for over a year. And that property, until it went on the market was occupied by its owner. That is TWO short term rentals on Mr. Johnson's block... on which there are approximately 33 homes.
To clarify yet another rather jaundice blog post, the rationale for a short-term rental moratorium is to take the pressure off acting quickly and legislating poorly. The moratorium is limited and has a sunset of 9 months, which should give the Council a good amount of time to "study the potential economic consequences" of regulating short-term rentals. The Legal Committee has been moving at a proper pace toward regulating short-term rentals, and a moratorium can only help that. It is not a permanent ban, so it would be helpful to tone back the drama. Hudson is far from unique in seeking to regulate short-term rentals. Communities around the world are struggling to grapple with the phenomenon. This is not about "legislating in the year of local elections," as you so cynically framed your post. We need to sensibly regulate the role that tourism plays in this community, to create good policies that sustain the economic benefits of tourist dollars spent in Hudson, without loosing the vibrancy and culture of our full-time residents. Doing nothing is not an answer. This is an expensive place to live, and I acknowledge that there are full-time residents who are supplementing the high costs of living here with short-term rental income. Any law that we pass after the moratorium will not want to impede on that. Lastly, I want to address the perception that we rushed to get this out. Last night was a simple act of procedure. We moved to lay a law on our desks, and that law is still subject to further review. We did not vote to enact anything. It is absurd to complain about not "seeing" the law. Every member of the legal committee has listened and understood the scope of a moratorium for months now, as well as understood that adopting a moratorium would help us craft a better law. One more meeting of committee examination would provide nothing. What more needs to be understood? It is a clear and simple thing. -John Rosenthal
ReplyDeleteHow about a moritorium on tax increases in Hudson? Tax rates are higher than Palm Beach !
ReplyDeleteDo the city council members who voted for this even pay taxes. ? Of any sort ? City county or federal ? I think the answer for many is No. or they haven’t paid and owe a lot.
I'll second that ... town is overprice for what it is or pretends to be. The recent assessments were punishing and created a lot of bad will. Not a way to run a town this small!
DeletePeople in government do like to throw money around. I wonder when they vote on spending if they are thinking of the taxes needed to pay the bills.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the moratorium goes it makes no sense to me. I would think that before taking a step as rash as restricting a business practice, particularly in a community where employment options are limited, that council members would study this perceived problem in advance, and not after a moratorium was put in place. I don't know of any other business that would be banned in order to study if it was a problem or not. This has a little funny motivational smell of tourist resentment. What's next, are we going to ban more restaurants and upscale retail shops? After all, they are taking up space that could be better used selling "affordable" things that residents need.
I had some misgivings too, but there's the matter of fairness to consider.
DeleteTo use your examples, imagine a typically regulated restaurant side-by-side with an unregulated one, or a law-abiding Warren Street boutique next to a competitor who operates without similar restrictions.
Where the next argument points out a difference in scale - or for those like me who were already working towards renting out a room - the provision for an exception seems easy enough.
A wise motivation to enact the moratorium - which is anyway months away - is to guard against runaway speculation by owners who have no intention of living in Hudson.
The moratorium is a pause on new operations, aside from those for whom the hardship clause was included.