The Common Council Housing and Transportation Committee meets today at 6:45 p.m. No agenda for the meeting is available, but there is the possibility that the proposed legislation to regulate short term rentals (STRs) will be a topic of discussion.
The Legal Committee has been working on the controversial STR legislation since January 2019. In the beginning, it seemed that a principal motivator for the legislation was outside investors buying up houses in Hudson, restoring them, and maintaining them as short-term rentals booked through such online platforms as Airbnb or VRBO. Of particular concern, it seemed, were those situations where one investor owned several buildings that were maintained as short term rentals, creating, in effect, an illegal hotel operation.
The idea of absentee owners taking over Hudson and populating Hudson neighborhoods with transient outsiders is a concern shared by many, but it has never been entirely clear how big a problem it actually is. Recently, Bob Rasner FOILed information about the STRs registered with the city treasurer's office and discovered this about STR owners with multiple properties, which he shared with Gossips. There are a total of ten owners of multiple properties registered to operate as STRs. One owner has 8 buildings, with a total of 14 guest rooms; another has 5 buildings, with a total of 19 guest rooms; a third has 3 buildings, with a total of 12 guest rooms; another 7 owners have 2 buildings each, for a total of 14 guest rooms. That is: 10 owners, 30 buildings, 59 guest rooms.
Recently, since the discussion of the STR legislation has become a more public process, there have been calls for data to back up the assumptions that seem to be driving the legislation. This information is a small piece of that data.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CAROLE OSTERINK
It's a tiny piece of the data and after multiple requests by multiple citizens--some of us, members of the public, have been asking for data ever since this odd piece of legislation was first proposed. It is now clear that members of the Council who are pushing this legislation are actively hiding the data requested -- or they don't have it. As Alderwoman Rebecca Wolf stated at the recent CDC meeting, the data comes from "our lived experience." That ain't data. Now that we see these same Council members pushing a huge tax break for a millionaire developer, we're getting the pieces together: a double cover-up.
ReplyDeleteThere is still so much more to understand, which is why actual numbers, actual data is useful. It's not emotional, it's not opinion, it's not anecdotal... It's simply numbers and facts, that can give us all much needed insight in order to make informed decisions.... For instance, in this information alone: The distinction of "Units" versus "Rooms", versus "Houses" versus "Buildings". Understanding how exactly STR's in Hudson break down would make a difference...
DeleteHow many are strictly investment properties where no one lives, and they are only used for STR, How many of those are solo homes, or are apartments with multiunits? How many are people who live here, full time or part time, and rent their own personal home out from time to time, but would not otherwise convert to long term rentals, because they are owner occupied at least part time? These are just a few of the questions it would be useful to know when considering perspectives on this topic.
Further, it's also useful to consider the specific legislation being proposed, as opposed to the topic in general. For instance in the current public draft (it is changing, and hopefully anew one will be released soon, but for the moment this is the draft...) There is a somewhat random limit of only 3 people to a short term rental... While there are many who strongly support regulation of short term rentals, It's likely most agree that capacity, whether long or short term should be tied to the legal capacity of the dwelling..... A 4 bedroom home should be able to have more than 3 guests, a studio apartment probably shouldn't have 3 guests.... These are common sense critiques that even those who support this legislation strongly would probably agree on, if they examined the specifics of this exact proposed bill.... Drilling down in the granular levels of details both in research and in legislation can understandably be mind numbing at times... but the devil is in the details, and the details are what will be enforced, and upheld by a court... So both gathering data upfront, AND understanding the details of the proposed legislation really matter...
It pretty clear what that little piece of data says:
ReplyDelete'That is: 10 owners, 30 buildings, 59 guest rooms.'
It would need to be identified which buildings the owners live in, (if they live in any) and that one is run as a real BnB, plus one more building allowed, according to the proposed law - then the others would presumably not be legal. So a little hard to tell exactly how many of the 59 rooms would be illegal, and how many people can occupy the rooms. If two for each room, the 118 in total. Still a lot of people coming to town on a given weekend.
And still an interesting piece of data.