Short-term rental owners in Anaheim are supposed to be shutting down as they recoup their investment, but that is taking so long and requiring so much city staff time, city leaders are looking at allowing more than 200 properties to continue operating indefinitely, provided they’re good neighbors and don’t cause complaints.
Facing a flood of complaints from neighbors about short-term rental properties in 2016, Anaheim officials chose to ban new ones and phase out those that already had city permits.
But more than two years later, the city is stuck reviewing stacks of paperwork from owners who applied for time extensions to make back money they invested in buying or fixing up properties to rent to visitors.
Short-term rentals are rooms, apartments or homes that owners rent out for less than 30 days, as an alternative to a hotel. Some owners live on the property, others manage it from off-site or hire a manager.
So after deciding to permit what was a growing business in 2014, then banning it two years later because of problems with noise, trash and parking, why the potential switch back to allowing short-term rentals?
The move would both reward good behavior by responsible operators and potentially save the city time, money and hassle in sorting out disputes over how long owners should be allowed to stay in business.
The city implemented tighter regulations, including code enforcement officers on duty during evening “quiet hours” and a requirement that immediate neighbors and the city have a way to reach someone fast if there’s a problem. That’s led to a significant drop in complaints about the rentals, city spokesman Mike Lyster said.
Also, officials are mired in applications for “hardship extensions” that would allow owners to operate their rentals until they recoup their investment in the property, and changing the rules could ease that logjam and save the city money.
The extension process was a provision in the settlement of a lawsuit owners filed when the city tried to shut them down. While a few dozen properties quit operating last year and about 40 more are set to shut down in August, the owners of another 235 rentals said they’d need much longer – the average request was 21 years – to recover the money they put in when the city was still allowing the the short-term rentals, according to a city report.
The average application for more time, including a form and supporting receipts and other paperwork, is nearly 800 pages. Since 2017, the city has spent about $430,000 on legal and accounting services to review the applications, and officials worry that owners who are cut off before they’re ready might still sue.
The council on Tuesday, June 4, will consider whether to let owners who meet certain conditions to continue renting their properties as long as they choose, but no new rental permits would be given and some owners might not be eligible if they’re in a community with a homeowners association that bans short-term rentals. Owners could still lose their permit if they generate too many code enforcement complaints and don’t respond to warnings.
Valerie Van De Zilver, who manages about 30 Anaheim properties through Val’s Vacation Homes, said owners who are still in business have banded together to make sure everyone follows the rules and is respectful of their neighbors. They also police themselves to ensure the city’s hotel taxes get paid, she said, noting that short-term rentals generate about $4 million a year for the city.
She’d like to see the owners, residents and the city come together and reach a decision that works for everyone, she said, adding that a total ban on short-term rentals is is unrealistic.
“It’s like saying we’re never going to have Uber again. They’re not going to go away.”
Posted by https://goo.gl/TXzGV5
No comments:
Post a Comment