The Legal Committee and the STR Law

As expected, the draft of the legislation regulating STRs (short term rentals) was the subject of discussion at the Common Council Legal Committee this past Wednesday. The number of people participating in the Zoom meeting, which went on for two hours, ranged from 65 to 74. Although the goal of the meeting was to consider revisions to the draft, and there were lots of people wanting to share ideas about what those revisions might be, for the first hour and a half the only people allowed to speak were the four members of the Legal Committee: John Rosenthal (Fourth Ward), who chairs the committee, Rebecca Wolff (First Ward), Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward), and Shershah Mizan (Third Ward). 

Rosenthal opened the discussion by expressing his opinion that allowing only STR facilities with a "resident host operator" made the most sense. He repeated his desire to have a "simple law." During the discussion, these are the changes that were agreed upon.

"Amortization Period"  The current draft of the law allows people operating STRs in violation of the proposed legislation to continue doing so until October 31, 2022. Rosenthal suggested that the time period be extended to five years, to "give people the chance to dispose of their property." When Garriga asked what the time period had to do with, Wolff explained "to allow an owner to basically do what we're making a law against." Jeff Baker, counsel to the Council, summarized: "Longer term amortization helps property owners; shorter term achieves the goal of residents of Hudson." Wolff insisted, "Everything has to do with the immediate situation--the housing shortage," and balked at extending the term to five years. In the end, it was decided to increase it from two years to three years.

"One to One Ratio"  The current draft of the law requires that for every short-term rental unit there must be a long-term rental unit. In a hypothetical building with five apartments, if two are used for short term rental, the other two must be offered for long term rental. (And the owner of the building must live in the fifth.) The committee agreed to do away with this requirement and allow as many units as there are in a building to be short term rentals, provided they are not above the second floor.

"Adjacent Property"  It was also agreed to eliminate the provision that allowed someone who operated an "owner-occupied transient occupancy lodging facility" to also have a "non-owner transient occupancy lodging facility" provided that it was next door to the "owner-occupied transient occupancy facility." It wasn't clear if what was eliminated was the adjacency requirement or the ability to operate a second STR facility that was not owner-occupied.

Jane Trombley (First Ward), who is not a member of the Legal Committee, suggested that the legislation should "carve out exceptions for people who have some commitment to Hudson." She cited two scenarios: (1) a business owner who doesn't live in Hudson but owns the building where their business is located and wants to rent out an apartment over the store as a short term rental; (2) the second home owner who wants to rent their house to short-term guests when they are not using it. Wolff observed that "apartments over stores have traditionally been where workforce housing has been." Rosenthal reiterated that he was "a strong proponent for a residency requirement." Garriga told Trombley she could bring up her concerns when the legislation goes to the full Council.   

When the meeting was opened to public comment, there were predictably those who had concerns about the proposed legislation and those who supported it wholeheartedly. One exchange, however, strengthened Gossips suspicion that the version of the law that was put on the City of Hudson website and about which people were invited to comment was not the most recent version of the document. At the beginning of the meeting, there was some confusion about which draft was the right draft. It was decided that the draft being shared on screen by Wolff was not the most recent draft. Baker finally found and shared the most recent draft, and it was that draft that the committee discussed, but it seemed not to be the same version that had been posted on the city website. 

During the public comment, Dan Barry, who identified himself as an owner/operator and resident, said that most of the people he has hosted were families, and he expressed concern that the three guest limit would change the nature of the tourist population visiting Hudson. Baker told him, "That threshold came from an earlier draft." Yet, that threshold is clearly stated in Paragraph F of the draft legislation that was posted on the city website. 

In his comments, John Schobel said he was stunned by how little the potential impact of the legislation on the city had been considered in the process of drafting the legislation. In this, he echoed Bob Rasner's call for a formal impact study, done by a third party, to help everyone understand what's at stake. At Wednesday's meeting, Rosenthal posited, "The legislation is not going to affect most operators," and claimed it would have a "marginal effect on tourism." If this is the case, there needs to be data to back it up. It would also be nice if the actual latest draft of the legislation would be made available for review and comment before the legislation moves on the the full Council.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK