Talk About Short Term Rentals
The draft of the local law regulating short term rentals, now familiarly known as STRs, has been available on the City of Hudson website since Monday, June 29, and the public has been invited to email comments on the law to Alderman John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward), who chairs the Legal Committee, the committee that drafted the law. john.rosenthal@cityofhudson.org
Today, Hudson Development Corporation announced that a major portion of its Emergency Business Task Force meeting, to take place on Monday, July 13, at 3:00 p.m., would be a roundtable discussion of the draft law to regulate STRs, and Rosenthal would be in attendance to answer questions. Lodging is an important element of Hudson's economy, and this roundtable is an opportunity for those who understand and appreciate its role to make their concerns about the law known. Click here for the link to join the Zoom meeting.
The plan for the legislation outlined at the last Legal Committee meeting was that the draft law would be made available for public comment until the next Legal Committee meeting, to take place on Wednesday, July 22, at 6:15 p.m. Possible amendments to the law, based on public comment, would be discussed at that meeting and possibly agreed to before the proposed law goes to the full Council in August.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
Carole, could someone explain the mechanics of this "roundtable" via Zoom. What are the new Roberts Rules of Order for the pandemic era? Does the HDC have a website? And who's on the Emergency Business Task Force? Is passing this law an emergency? It seems to me that the only emergency here is a City government that doesn't know that the City's small businesses have been all but wiped out during the pandemic and that the last thing they would want to do is shut more down, which is what this legislation is about.
ReplyDeleteI can only report what I know, Peter Meyer. I don't know how the meeting will be conducted nor do I know anything about a pandemic/Zoom version of Robert's Rules of Order. HDC does have a website, has had for years, but the relevant website is the one recently created: reimaginehudson.com. I've been reporting about the HDC emergency tasks forces since the beginning, but the website will provide the information you seek.
DeletePassing the law seems to be an emergency with the Common Council, since many on the Council apparently believe that STRs are ruining Hudson. As I understand it, the roundtable on Monday is an effort to get this discussed outside of the Common Council Legal Committee and in as open a venue as is possible given the constraints imposed by the pandemic. You should probably embrace this as a right-minded effort.
what is ruining --or has already ruined-- Hudson, is the over regulation of everything having to do with short term rentals and AIRBNB.
DeleteHudson had a great growth pattern of small businesses and independent owners investing their own money, and sweat equity, to make a varied economy right here in Hudson.
the leftist bureaucrats prior to the COVID crisis wanted to stop all STR's because it was gentrifying the city.
small business owners were actually making money outside of the standard huge chain store culture of America and this was somehow bad to the new citizens of Hudson. they didn"t want all sales tax revenue and small business owner success.
Hudson city officials and COVID have already effectively killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
Hard won revenues that took years of building have collapsed.
Thanks Team Hudson for making sure to kill the small business environment.
Bring in more state funded nonsense that only makes a few "non-profit" capitalists any money. And you know who they are --
Be careful in the future NOT to over-legislate what WAS successful. You do not know what you had that was so good and unique to what exists in the rest of America.
maybe you can revive it but i seriously doubt it, unless you wake up to economic reality. the reality --??
Nothing is by any measure "affordable" or easy in today's world. and your legislation will only make it more difficult.
Hudson used to be the example of how to do it, but now that is unlikely.
Per my skepticism about Zoom roundtables, I "arrived" at yesterday's meeting at 3:10 and couldn't "get in."
DeleteAt a time when many of our friends, neighbors, fellow citizens struggle for work, struggle to put food on the table, worry about the future of our city and our country, Why on earth would the city impede residents of Hudson from trying to make what ever money they could during this awful time. Many folks have worked their entire lives to buy property and now their property may be the only means of income they can generate from. This law may have some good intentions but now is NOT THE TIME. Tourism is way down as it is, business are struggling. Air bb is a small business for many. Many of these people are locals just trying to make a little extra ends meat. You hurt the property owners, the cleaning businesses they employ, and property managers! this law will hurt this local economy during the absolute worst time! Put this law aside until things get better, not now. This is not a wise decision.
ReplyDeleteExactly.In times of crisis, keep it simple. allow the citizens of Hudson to at least survive. no one is making wall st money here, we are trying to build a real community.
Deletewhy make it so hard, if not impossible??
From what I understand talking to lodging business owners their business has dried up too. Great there's a Lodging Tax, but with no one coming to Hudson that money is at or close to zero. Just walking down the street most of the people you'll see aren't local. They must be staying somewhere like a LTR or Airbnb. So if the city isn't getting money from the hotels and bed and breakfasts they need to get it from somewhere. Clearly the LTR places are the only ones that are going to generate any revenue. Cutting of their nose...
ReplyDeleteSome good points raised here, particularly with regard to the current financial crisis facing the city. While I find this blog to be a useful source of information, do not forget to send your comments to the email link provided for John.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of where you come down on this issue, I think it’s worth recognizing that Alderman Rosenthal has chosen to take HDC up on its offer and address concerns with the legislation publicly among members of Hudson’s business and lodging communities. I think in an era when too much “governing” takes place outside the watchful eye of the public, at all levels of government, we should take a moment to recognize and appreciate efforts of transparency and public input among our elected officials.
ReplyDeleteThis is an email sent to John Rosenthal and the mayor today, sending in multiple parts. Thanks to anyone who gets through it all.
ReplyDeleteThis is my input for the public comments tomorrow. Just to make it clear: I’m not in favor of these restrictions. There are so many reasons, I’ll just randomly list them, and you can sort it out, chicken-or-egg style.
1. The STR industry in Hudson is down by about 50% over last year, in case anyone's noticed. I'm sure the hotels are seeing the same, probably more. So in a way, Mission Accomplished even without a law. Thanks, Covid. But what does that mean for the city, if STRs are further restricted?
2. More than 50% less customers for Hudson businesses. 50% less work for servers, shopkeepers, cleaners and other workers. All the people this law is purporting to "protect".
A few weekends ago, I was sitting in the Presbyterian Church yard, during the first Shared Streets experiment, and an older tourist asked me why half the storefronts on Warren St. were boarded up. I had to explain that every year there are dreamers, people who put themselves and their savings on the line to start a new business. Some succeed, some don't. But every year there are new dreamers who fill the storefronts. Except this year. This year we have the gap-toothed mouth of an 8 year old on Warren.
3. 50% less Sales Tax. 50% less Lodging Tax. 50% less meter fees and parking fines...
4. It was said at one of the earlier city meetings, but I'll repeat it here: if anyone thinks a limit on STRs is going to magically make these apartments "affordable", think again. City people, like many of us, are now (again, thanks to Covid) reevaluating their lifestyles: they've found they can work remotely, they're stifling in their small NYC apartments where they have to negotiate the elevator, pedestrians, etc. every time they need to walk the dog. They want some breathing room, and Columbia County, and Hudson, offers that. They are flocking here in droves, which is driving prices even higher. They are buying with multiple offers in many cases. Don't take my word for it. Ask a few local Realtors. If anyone thinks limiting STRs will stop the gentrification train, it won't.
5. Enforcement: the hoops people have to jump through to get already-operating non-owner occupied STRs approved is insane. Planning board approval, inspections and forms by the building inspector., etc. By the way, there is a law on the books that apartments have to be inspected annually and/or on move in/move out. There was a fee and registration. I think I paid it once -- maybe the only landlord in the city who did. I was never contacted, and I've never heard it mentioned again. If the city wasn't able to administer that law, how on earth will they have the manpower to do this? Hire more people? Don't forget, the city will be getting less income this year. Where's the room in the budget for the additional expense?
6. No provisions for grandfathering already-operating STRs that don't meet the new requirements. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a spate of lawsuits by property owners re this whole law. Would they win? Maybe, maybe not. But it will still cost the city a boatload of cash and time to defend. Is there a budget for that?
7. No STRs above the 2nd floor, unless blah, blah, blah. Why is it ok for our year-round residents to be "endangered" by living in a 3rd floor apartment without the sprinklers, etc. required by STRs, but it's not ok for STR guests? Are our citizens' lives less valuable than guests? Because, whether that was the intended outcome, that's what this requirement is saying.
8. The Affordable Housing argument: we already have 25% of our population living in some form of subsidized housing. ( And whether or not people want to admit it, many, if not most, of those people have moved here from downstate. We have long ago stopped helping the local population. It's like that line from that baseball movie: if you build it, they will come. And they have. ) That in and of itself is a very high percentage, not sustainable in a city in which 40% +/- of our buildings are tax-exempt due to being municipally owned, or owned/rented by non-profits (I'm looking at you, Galvan). What we actually need is middle-income housing, which will not be built because there's no state or federal handouts to build anything other than low-income housing. But neither low or middle income housing will be obtained by the cutback on STRs because of the influx from the NYC area to get away from Covid. Wait! I correct myself: if Hudson continues to see a decline in improvement due to choking legislation on top of outrageous taxes and a naturally-occuring virus, rents will fall. Properties will be neglected, and eventually foreclosed upon. There'll just be nobody who'll want to live here, because it will be "Hello, 1970s" - deja vu all over again, to quote Yogi Berra.
ReplyDelete9. The tourist industry is just that: an Industry, a legitimate business, and should be treated as such. Clean, easy on our resources (no schools or services required), fast money for the city and its working residents. It works. Just ask Orlando. The city council is choking the goose that laid the golden egg, at a time when we need all the eggs she can lay. This is not the time to restrict STRs, which are small businesses that have a symbiotic relationship with other, more traditional small businesses.
10. Noise complaints: can be handled by the police as they are in any other situation. I personally (and I've been doing STRs since before Airbnb was even a blow-up mattress in the founder's living room) have never had a problem with noise complaints, and I really don't see anything on the police blotter either.
11. Will draconian laws lead to illegal STRs? Sure it will. Any time you back people into a corner and restrict their business, it creates an underground black market. Because people need to earn money to feed their families. And no laws are going to stop that. Whole countries have shadow economies. Why wouldn't Hudson if it becomes so hard to do business legitimately? So the result will be...
ReplyDelete12. Less lodging tax. Less sales tax... Are we seeing a pattern here?
To circle back to my conversation with that tourist on the church bench: In chatting I mentioned my oft repeated phrase "everyone in government should be required to become proficient in Sim City before taking office, so they would understand the inter-relationships between the different necessary parts to keep a city alive." He got this surprised look on his face. Turns out he's a civil engineer, who taught engineering to college students. One of the classes he taught was Sim City! for the same reasons I gave. Said he had a hard time convincing Administration it was valuable, but it was the only class that students actually told him made them able to visualize the relationships they were learning about.
At the same time the city is doing shared streets to try to help the affected businesses, in a time when the whole country has been on "Pause", why can't we pause the passage of this law and revisit it when Hudson is back on more solid footing? Lowering Airbnb use has effectively already been done by the virus already. There's plenty of time to wait and think - unless everyone enjoyed the mid-70s to the mid-90s, when Prison Alley was unceremoniously called "Crack Alley", and everyone who had two nickels to rub together moved out to Greenport. The city has had big ups and downs in the past. This is a chance to mitigate another downturn. But make no mistake: it can happen again. All it takes is some short-sighted thinking and lopsided planning. And then we're back to: who will pay the taxes to support the city?
Pretty sensible MAG.
DeleteMAG for Mayor!
DeleteWOW. MAG, you hit every single point. you are a hero. thank you on behalf of all the people that just want to live and prosper during these uncharted times. THANK YOU! run for mayor
ReplyDeleteThanks for providing this information about the proposed short-term law. I probably wouldn't have found it otherwise. I just sent this email to Alderman Rosenthal objecting to the restrictions on short-term rentals for second homeowners:
ReplyDeleteDear Alderman Rosenthal,
I write as a new property owner in the city of Hudson, NY, to oppose a proposed local law regarding short-term rentals in Hudson to the extent it would prohibit owners of second homes or vacation homes in Hudson from renting out their homes on a short-term basis.
My understanding is that the proposed law is at the following link, and that you have invited public comment on the law by email: http://cms3.revize.com/revize/hudsonny/Common%20Council/Agendas%20Meeting%20Documents/2020/June/200625%20Short%20Term%20Rental%20LL%20draft%20jsb%20rev%204.pdf
If this is incorrect, please let me know and I will address my comments to the appropriate official.
As I interpret the proposed law, it would seem to prohibit owners of second or vacation homes in Hudson from renting out their homes on a short-term basis, even if they have a nearby property manager during the term of the rental. The law seems to allow short-term rentals only by homeowners who live full-time in the same home being rented out, or in another unit of the same property if the property is a two-family dwelling or multiple dwelling building. See §325-28.3, definition of "Non-Owner Occupied Transit Occupancy Lodging" and subsections H through K.
I therefore object to the proposed law because there is no reason why a homeowner in Hudson who is a full-time resident should be able to rent out his or her home on a short-term basis, while a homeowner who lives in Hudson part-time should be prohibited from doing so.
First, Hudson has recently become an attractive place for people to stay and visit, and the city should be supporting tourism, not making it more difficult for tourists to visit and stifling the business they generate. There are a limited number of hotels in Hudson. In addition, many people prefer to stay in other people's homes, with privacy and without the homeowner present, when visiting new cities, rather than having to stay in hotels. I myself certainly do, especially when visiting scenic small towns with beautiful houses like Hudson. If potential tourists are prohibited from staying privately in others' houses when visiting Hudson, they will avoid Hudson and visit other cities instead. Tourism supports local businesses, makes the city a more dynamic and exciting place, and brings in tax revenue that would otherwise have to be collected from homeowners.
Second, it would be unfair for the city to provide a special benefit to corporations running hotels and homeowners who live in Hudson on a full-time basis by allowing them to rent out their properties on a short-term basis, while depriving second homeowners of this use of their homes. Many second homeowners in Hudson are not able to live in Hudson on a full-time basis because they have to live near their place of work in New York City or other large cities. They should not be punished for this by being deprived of their ability to rent out their homes on a short-term basis. For example, recent second homeowners in Hudson may end up struggling financially at some point in the future, and the proposed law would effectively require them to sell their homes or move to Hudson permanently rather than rent out their homes on a short-term basis to help ends meet.
Third, any concerns with management of the rental property or protecting neighbors from disturbances from short-term tenants can be adequately addressed by requiring owners to remain nearby or have a nearby, registered property owner during the term of the rental, as contemplated by subsection K of the proposed law.
Thank you for considering these comments on the proposed law.