Property owners in the Oro Valley who pocket extra money by renting to short-term clients and vacationers may face new, but limited, restrictions.
OV City Council will hold a public hearing at its regular meeting on Wednesday on a new ordinance regulating short term rentals. Well, let’s not go crazy. The ordinance will give the city full powers under Arizona law.
In September, council members asked staff what the city could do to protect neighborhoods from more insidious short-term rental activity.
The Arizona legislature has put in place a pretty blanket restriction against local governments preventing landlords from turning properties into small hotels. However, city attorneys may have found limited ways to regulate the practice.
the new rules would use city authority granted in other state laws. For example, Arizona’s revised statutes give the city the power to require business licenses, prohibit rental to registered sex offenders, and require neighbors to be notified that adjacent property will be a short-term rental. term.
The Legislature passed protections for short-term rentals in 2016. Back then, lawmakers really didn’t have to worry about their party losing control of the State House or the Senate. Democrats have not controlled the Legislative Assembly since 1966.
So when Airbnb lobbyists cried out about local property rights violations, lawmakers didn’t have to come up with some semblance of a compromise protecting landlords and neighborhoods. They just got radical.
Then lawmakers began to allow limited restrictions such as requiring business licenses, prohibiting commercial uses (although renting a home is a commercial enterprise), and creating a three strikes rule. .
It’s a pretty weak sauce. What should be required is a conditional use permit. If my house is in a residential area, I would need to get special permission to operate a business that depends on a flow of customers passing through my house.
The same goes for owners of short-term rentals. This would allow activity but at the discretion of local elected officials. They should have the best behavior.
Airbnb – for example – allows owners to turn properties into businesses in areas zoned as residential. To me that’s an improper use, but state zoning law allows renting property for lodging.
A tenant moving their belongings into the house for six months or a year has an interest in the condition of the neighborhood. A guy throwing a backpack on a couch and calling a barrel doesn’t have one.
Upzonings like this usually require local government approval. Super majorities are now required if 20% of adjacent landowners oppose rezoning related to all other industries.
Apartment complexes require special zoning and they are not permitted in direct residential neighborhoods.
The rental hall has made itself a special exception.
Renting to tenants on a long-term lease at least creates long-term neighbors. Renting by the day or week can invite drive-thru customers who face little consequence if they trash the property — doing to another neighborhood what they wouldn’t do to theirs.
Of course, there are property rights issues with this practice. An owner has always known how to transform his properties into long-term rentals. The trick is balance – don’t tip the scales to favor the more affluent lobbyists.
This is exactly the kind of local problem that could lose 5 points in a legislative race. With the perks of a seat in both the State House and the Senate, GOP lawmakers may want to be careful about what might be an under-the-radar issue with commuters.
Neighborhoods tend to fiercely protect their quality of life. There is also evidence that these short-term rentals are taking properties out of the rental stock, driving up rents and creating homelessness. Places like Scottsdale and Paradise Valley are calling for new powers to restrict short-term rentals. Sedona is paying landlords $10,000 to delist properties.
All it takes is two 53-47 legislative districts to come back from 50.1 to 49.9 and the Democrats run things in Phoenix.
action-adventure
The OV Board will also discuss new budget policies, which could be trivial, senseless, corrupt or catastrophic. So I dug into it for a second.
Looks like it’s only basic accounting and investment standards who lean towards a more conservative approach to money management. For example, the year-end fund balance target would be increased to 30%. Seems a bit high but whatever.
The board wants to make sure it has enough money to cover the cost of new debt.
These policies are not charter changes. Any council can rework them as needed.
The board will also consider how to clarify how parliamentary rules are used for city business. I’ll spare you the details, because if you think accounting is boring…
In other cases…
In Sahuaritathe city council will hold its annual retreat to come up with new ideas on how to achieve the goals set out in the city strategic plan.
I resist the urge to write “actualize” as a verb.
Strategic plans tend to be very simple, albeit expensive, documents that state “this is how we do government without destroying the joint”.
I liked to cover these retreats. They are a chance for the government to ask itself “are our policies achieving our objectives”. Some crazy ideas can be tossed around and thrown out, but it’s also an opportunity for the board to steer policy in new ways.
the Santa Cruz County The supervisory board will probably approve $10,000 “line level” bonus sheriff’s deputies and correctional officers.
The money will come from the State Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. The total cost will be $650,000.
the South Tucson The city council will vote to appoint a new city attorney and approve his contract, none of which was provided in the public agenda documents.
Comments are closed.