HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-23 Public Comment - P. House - STR comments for 10_17_23From:Bozeman Cottage
To:Agenda
Subject:[EXTERNAL]STR comments for 10/17/23
Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:29:18 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 Commissioners,
These comments are long so I'll list some of my points here at the top, with more context below:
- The math does not support any significance in numbers of the current, legal STRs so no action is warranted against
those;
- A vote to ban STRs is actually going to lead to a fully unregulated STR scenario as it would draw legislative
action similar to inclusionary zoning;
- The common ground is enforcing the current laws to get rid of the illegal STRs - that is the source of ire against
STRs, not the few legal ones;
- Legal STRs provide a vital housing component for tourism and locals alike, conservative estimates are
$0.5M/year/STR pumped into the local economy - that is money being used for our working class to pay rent and
cost of living;
- Type 3 STRs are not investor owned, 90% of my homeowners live here.
- Rental rates have dropped $400/mo in the last two months, the market is supplying more affordable housing
already;
- Banning STRs won't result in more affordable housing;
- Tenant's United 's actions demonstrate that they are not actually interested in affordable housing as they
have ignored the UDC meetings where the actual housing crises is being addressed. This is curious at best and at
worst it is suspicious.
- A moratorium gives us time to evaluate the new enforcement tools;
- Limiting STRs in B-2M and REMU is needed so developers can adjust as necessary;
- If you vote to ban STRs then you must agree that they are bad for communities and therefore should never
rent one for your own use again.
I started managing short term rentals in the late 1990s, long before Airbnb existed.
Bozeman is the only place I've ever lived and I care deeply about it. That's why I have always lobbied for regulating
STRs for fear of there being too many. Since 2020 we've seen the number of STRs double, triple, or even more and
THAT'S why we're here tonight. We ARE NOT here because of the compliant STRs which were legalized in 2017.
Year round legal STRs comprise a minute fraction of our housing stock at 0.3%. The financial report commissioned
by this body, and then refuted by some on this commission with no supporting evidence, concluded that banning
STRs would have a negligible impact on housing supply or price. Many other studies around the country came to the
same conclusion, so where's the evidence that a ban would be beneficial? The burden of proof lies on this
commission. The Community Development Board agrees. Nobody benefits from operating in a void of facts.
Tenant's United is fixated on banning STRs but has yet to show up and get involved in the real issue at hand: the
Universal Development Code revisions. This is mysterious at best and subversive and misguided to many. Why are
they taking their strong voice and aiming it at something that provides no solution or benefit?
What I think we all agree on is that the illegal, unpermitted STRs which could number in the 1000s, can and do have
an impact on housing supply. Finally, the city is starting to enforce our 2017 policy to bring the situation under
control. The motion that you are here to consider, banning the small number of compliant STRs, is an overreaction
that will have nothing but negative impacts:
- it would end the $.5M/year in local spending for every STR, ie. rent money to the resident workers;
- it violates state law Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-208
- and it most likely will draw the legislature into the same reaction that inclusionary zoning did and strip Bozeman
of any control over STRs. If you think there are too many STRs now, just imagine what that would lead to!
So where is the logic in this? STRs lack significance in numbers but they do contribute heavily to the local economy
and also to the desirability of visiting Bozeman. Today's modern community to me includes a small number of
regulated STRs that serve visitors and locals alike. STRs are where not only visitors can stay but also people comingfor medical tourism or temporary housing for a family whose home floods. It's no secret that the temporary citymanager was staying in an STR for much of 2017 at the very time they were legalized. My school bus driver's homeburned on Ice Pond Road in about 1980 and he and his wife had to live in a hotel for over a year. So yes, we used toget by without STRs but we also used to get by without Novocain. Does anyone want to go back to that era? Areyou willing to take an oath to never stay in a Type 3 Airbnb again?
Staff report notes:A.1. Resiliancy R-2.5 Proposed Ordinance is NOT based on 'multiple years of regulating STRs in Bozeman' sinceno regulation occurred, which is why we're still here talking about it and the city is still spending money on it.Further, this is NOT TRUE 'the ordinance is based on extensive research of best practices and case law from othercommunities both within and outside the state.' Legal analysis is lacking and opens the city to lawsuits andlegislative rebuke and ultimately losing control of STRs and draining revenue in lawsuits.
A.2. Missing middle, NO CERTAINTY in freeing up Type 3 housing to long term rentals, let alone affordableLTRs.
So what to do with all this? The easiest option that protects our community is to institute a moratorium on new Type 2 & 3 STR licenses, give the enforcement time to work and reassess.
Thank you for considering the facts in this issue.
Paul House510 N Church