HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-23 Public Comment - B. Allee - STR RegulationFrom:Bryce Allee
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]STR Regulation
Date:Friday, October 6, 2023 9:10:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Bozeman City Commission,
As a business owner, employer, and property owner in the City of Bozeman, I have some concerns
regarding an ordinance being contemplated by our elected officials. And before judgement is
passed on what I think or believe, I would like to be clear that I have been a long-time proponent of
workforce housing solutions.
The ordinance being considered is a wider ban on short term rentals (STRs) in the city limits. This
first came to my attention when a small, special interest group got some publicity calling for such an
ordinance. It first seemed comical because such an ordinance logically can’t have a meaningful
effect on housing affordability in Bozeman. That being said, Bozeman Tenants United has time,
resources and now it appears the commission’s ear, so we are treating it as a legitimate threat to
Bozeman’s property owners’ rights.
Currently, the city has on the books ordinances, including the recently passed 2131, that closely
regulate and restrict short term rentals. Those restrictions were based on some foundation of logic
and reason (although the federal courts disagree with that reasoning and have determined no
residential rental is to be construed as a commercial use), and I do not oppose, and frankly
encourage, the enforcement of existing city ordinances. What I do not support is new law, layered
onto old law not being enforced, that is passed based on emotions and feelings.
I have reached out very respectfully to the Bozeman Tenants United because I had assumed that if a
group was pursuing creating new law, that the group would have answers to some of the obvious
questions regarding the benefits of implementing the law they hope to pass. Those questions have
all gone without response. Anytime a group is unwilling to engage in civil discourse to talk about
their position I question the merit of that position. This group is very good at painting a narrative,
but it is just that, a story. It is not based on empirical evidence that this type of additional regulation
would help any of the people their group hopes to support.
Conversely, the groups that have now had to step in to bring some direction to this discussion like
the STR hosts, platforms, real estate professional, and STR owners will be providing numbers to
show the inefficacy of such laws. They will go one step further to show the other, negative
economic impacts of further regulation of STRs. You would be robbing many homeowners of a tool
that they work hard to use to CREATE affordability for themselves and their families. You would be
stripping opportunities for the cleaners, maintenance people, lawn care and snow removal providers
who depend on the additional income to be able to afford to live in our community. You would be
taking away housing from travel nurses who depend on short term rentals to be able to come work
in our hospitals. You would change how tourists engage with city businesses and where they spend
their money. You would be infringing on private property rights. But most importantly you would
not move the needle on bringing housing to ‘poor and working class’ people as the proponents of
additional regulation hope.
We can’t let small special interests dictate to our commission what laws should be passed based on
feelings. It is that very behavior that has negatively impacted housing affordability. Small special
interest has swayed the city commission to vote against the professionals who administer the
Bozeman Planning & Zoning Board on Zoning Map Amendments that would have added hundreds, if
not more, units of housing to our market, it is small vociferous special interest that prevented viable
student housing projects from going in near the university and forcing those students to the
outskirts of town, further burdening and congesting our town’s infrastructure, it is small special
interest that has added layers of architectural guidelines to the UDC robbing developers of their
most affordable home plans, and small special interest that has pushed for the use of tax dollars to
preserve historic homes, park and open space, or remove actual affordable homes to make way for
more parks.
Regulation has largely contributed to a reduced number of housing units and higher housing costs.
More regulation is not going to rectify the challenges we face because of those earlier regulatory
choices.
Not being one to fight against issues without proposing alternatives, I would like to revisit some of
the suggestions that the business owners, the Chamber of Commerce and myself have been pushing
for since housing affordability was first slipping away in Bozeman.
The most recent UDC is a great example of the city leadership’s constant assault on housing
affordability through regulation. The open space requirements, length of time and cost to navigate
permitting, onerous off site improvement costs and now even architectural design guidelines have
taken away the opportunity for builders and developers to put together some of our most affordable
projects. So, the easiest and most cost effective way to lower housing costs in the city would be
through a speedier permit process and lighter regulation as well as investment in city infrastructure.
This is how real supply is created.
If the city insists on subsidies to create affordability, you have to consider alternatives to throwing
money at housing itself. With the current cost of land and housing, it is a highly inefficient use of
taxpayer dollars. Consider a subsidy instead to allow for quality, affordable daycare. Quality
affordable daycare does two great things for our city. It brings parents that are staying home with
kids back into the workforce, while bringing a second income back into the household. We all know
that one of Bozeman’s biggest challenges is finding quality employees. There are many out there
that are not working because of the cost of daycare. The cost of one single family home in Bozeman
could operate a 60 child daycare for 3 years. This would make a huge difference for a significant
number of families’ ability to afford Bozeman by greatly increasing household income.
Public transit would be the third leg of housing affordability that should be considered. It is common
across this country that the critical workforce for a town or city or metropolis is not able to live right
where they work, or in the very best or most desirable areas. Because of heavy regulation the vast
majority of our city is very desirable, and therefore expensive. We must consider, then, that not all
of our workforce is able to live in the city proper, and the best thing that our city can do to bring
affordability to our workforce, is bring accessibility to Bozeman from the communities, like Belgrade,
that are actually working on meaningful affordable housing development. I am sure that inter-
municipality public transit is fraught with regulation, but for lawmakers that is the type of puzzle you
are tasked with putting together. Making commuting easy and affordable brings real housing to real
people that are working in Bozeman.
It seems that the first of these is unlikely since the voting record of our city leaders, and the citizens
themselves, has proven time and time again that we are far more interested in Pretty Bozeman than
Affordable Bozeman. It also seems that we want to try to throw sums of taxpayer money at the
problem, so maybe we can do that in a more effective, efficient, and impactful way.
At this moment in time, let us at least not further regulate short term rentals, and watch the litany of
‘unintended’ consequences unfold. Once we have put this discussion behind us, let us then engage
in ways to make meaningful differences for Bozeman’s workforce through efficient use of the
resources available to us.
Your job is a difficult one, but the decision on whether to pursue additional STR regulation is a simple
no.
Thank you,