HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-23 Public Comment - L. Taylor - Vote NO on Ordinance 2149From:Lauren Taylor
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Vote NO on Ordinance 2149
Date:Monday, October 16, 2023 1:14:25 PM
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.
I have a couple of points that I would like to share (one personal, one professional):
Personally, I would like to see Bozeman allow STR within city limits due to reasons beyond
just leisure and travel… My family is currently in a very difficult situation where mydaughter’s father has been diagnosed with very aggressive stage 4 cancer requiring us to
travel for extended periods of time to treatment facilities out of state. Being that he hasmedical equipment and an extremely restricted diet as well as a VERY weakened immune
system, Airbnb/VRBO is the preferred choice for accommodations as he is able to feel morecomfortable in a home setting, be less exposed to social situations/crowded facilities, and he
is able to prepare appropriate meals as well as store medications and equipment easily… Amini fridge doesn’t quite cut it in a hotel room, and the cost to upgrade to a suite with more
amenities (if even available) is always more expensive than seeking STR accommodations.Eliminating STRs in Bozeman would affect more than just our tourists and property
owners/investors; it also affects those traveling for reasons outside of their control as well asthose with specific needs that a standard hotel room cannot accommodate. (Travel nurses,
travel doctors, individuals and families with disabilities, medical needs, dietary needs, etc.)
Professionally, I have done ample research across the U.S. regarding similar STRcontroversy, laws and restrictions as I am a Real Estate Broker in the valley and pride
myself on continuously furthering my education. There have been several communities thathave gone through the motions that Bozeman is currently facing with STR regulations, and
from what I have discovered, the city almost always gets sued after making dramaticchanges, ultimately losing the suit and costing the city/taxpayers substantial amounts of
money in settlement fees, etc. Often times, these lawsuits will have merit in regard to thecity ordinances being in direct violation of state law (which in our case, there IS conflict
there), and in some cases, it is simply found to be a violation of property owner rightsand/or unconstitutional. Not only have cities been required to pay homeowners substantial
amounts of money upon losing these suits, but they ultimately retract to lighter restrictionsthan prior to tightening things up as they fear ongoing litigation. The numbers have spoken
for themselves in our community; the majority of STR property owners said that they wouldNOT convert their properties to long-term rentals and would let the property sit completely
vacant before considering conversion. The number have also shown that STR propertiesmake up less than 3% of our housing supply, so that statistic in combination with property
owners being unwilling to convert their properties goes to show that further restricting STRswill have no significant impact on affordable housing whatsoever. This risk for the city
seems to outweigh the “reward” in this case. The city is at risk for major litigation andfinancial losses with almost no potential for reward on the other end of the spectrum. The
reality is, these STR property owners are comprised of regular folks depending on thisstream of revenue for their livelihood as well as investors with time and money to put
towards legal action. Either way, you’ve got two groups of people who will be verypassionate about pursuing legal recourse. I would encourage those involved to research the
recent suits in both Austin, TX and Wilmington, NC for perspective. (There are many
others, but that’s a good place to start.)