Air BnB Legislation

[TnNative]

Apologies if this is being discussed on another thread. Looks like the esteemed state senators from Air BnB hotbeds of Huntingdon and Crossville are now just targeting the inner neighborhoods with their overreaching "legislation". East Nashville is already beginning to be eat up with out of state non owner occupied AirBnB's. Lovely it's ok these people can run full businesses next to our houses but not in any of the Republican strongholds. This could be the death knell of any real neighborhood building. It's becoming Disney Land for drunken tourists who want to experience a "an urban" neighborhood. Total BS -

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/04/state-intervention-short-term-rentals-now-proposed-just-4-big-cities/101284412/

[Flatrock]

2 hours ago, TnNative said:

This could be the death knell of any real neighborhood building. It's becoming Disney Land for drunken tourists who want to experience a "an urban" neighborhood. Total BS -

Met with a city councilman this morning on another development related topic and asked his thoughts regarding this subject.  He was very displeased with the state stepping in (on?), yet again, to city business. Some of our state legislative peeps from the hinterlands are rather destructive - and make poor choices in how they spend their precious time and energy. Beyond understanding. 

[tragenvol]

2 hours ago, Flatrock said:

Some of our state legislative peeps from the hinterlands are rather destructive - and make poor choices in how they spend their precious time and energy. Beyond understanding. 

Time isn't necessarily a factor for these legislators; lobbyists have time however.

[Guest]

I can cite chapter and verse of urban legislators doing the same....by definition, government overreach is not limited to party or geographical labels. I will have to read the bill to see the justification of state authority over local autonomy. (Edit: if not then it is an overreach).

However, I know you are not naive enough to believe the lobbyists for Nashville's hotels have not been been spending their 'time' influencing our local officials.

[UTgrad09]

4 hours ago, nashville_bound said:

I can cite chapter and verse of urban legislators doing the same....by definition, government overreach is not limited to party or geographical labels. While I will have to read the bill to see the justification of state authority over local autonomy.

However, I know you are not naive enough to believe the lobbyists for Nashville's hotels have not been been spending their 'time' influencing our local officials.

And I can cite that two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't agree on government overreach at any level.

I think there are some very legitimate concerns from property owners over AirBnB properties disrupting neighborhoods. Anything that infringes on a property owner becomes a larger issue. I have a very hard time believing that a rural lawmaker has any understanding of the implications of this, and it's not a far reach to think that they are voting with money, and not with conscience. 

That said, I think most politicians tend to vote with money and/or their party's favor. There is gamesmanship played by both sides. And it screws all of us. 

 

Both sides need to grow up and do what is in the best interest of Tennesseans...not what is in the best interest of party status quo.

[CenterHill]

And tonight, folks, rural legislators in the TN House, influenced by Airbnb's army of lobbyists, have just passed a bill saying Nashville, it literally applies ONLY to Nashville, may not enact any legislation that restricts non-owner occupied Short Term Rentals.   A billion dollar industry has literally bought its right to operate commercial businesses in Nashville's residentially zoned neighborhoods.    A sad day.  

[donNdonelson2]

I expect an immediate legal challenge if this is signed into law.

[Guest]

pretty sure we actually said the same thing....

 

11 hours ago, UTgrad09 said:

And I can cite that two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't agree on government overreach at any level.

I think there are some very legitimate concerns from property owners over AirBnB properties disrupting neighborhoods. Anything that infringes on a property owner becomes a larger issue. I have a very hard time believing that a rural lawmaker has any understanding of the implications of this, and it's not a far reach to think that they are voting with money, and not with conscience. 

That said, I think most politicians tend to vote with money and/or their party's favor. There is gamesmanship played by both sides. And it screws all of us. 

 

Both sides need to grow up and do what is in the best interest of Tennesseans...not what is in the best interest of party status quo.

 

[samsonh]

11 hours ago, CenterHill said:

And tonight, folks, rural legislators in the TN House, influenced by Airbnb's army of lobbyists, have just passed a bill saying Nashville, it literally applies ONLY to Nashville, may not enact any legislation that restricts non-owner occupied Short Term Rentals.   A billion dollar industry has literally bought its right to operate commercial businesses in Nashville's residentially zoned neighborhoods.    A sad day.  

Good breakdown of the proceedings here:

 

http://www.nashvillepost.com/politics/legislation/article/20860784/house-passes-nashvilleonly-airbnb-bill

 

 

[PruneTracy]

11 hours ago, donNdonelson2 said:

I expect an immediate legal challenge if this is signed into law.

Now I'm not a...

...fancy, big-city lawyer but ultimately the state has sovereignty over municipalities, Dillon's Rule and all that.

It doesn't help matters that Nashville, unlike Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, doesn't operate under a home-rule charter.

[Edgefield D]

TN Senate Finance Committee deferred the bill til 2018. I for one am glad. 

[CenterHill]

4 hours ago, Edgefield D said:

TN Senate Finance Committee deferred the bill til 2018. I for one am glad. 

And I for two!  

[AronG]

18 hours ago, Edgefield D said:

TN Senate Finance Committee deferred the bill til 2018. I for one am glad. 

Our state legislature does a lot of things that strike me as ridiculous, but somehow it's still a new level of accomplishment that they would would propose a law overriding local control, receive blowback from almost every local jurisdiction affected by the law, then choose to move forward, only restricting it to a single area that predominantly supports the opposing political party. I'm trying to think of a similar precedent, but I can't come up with anything.

It's one thing to pass a law that nominally applies to everyone, but in practice only affects areas with opposing political constituencies (the 2011 anti-anti-discrimination law, for example). Both parties do this and, right or wrong, you can make the case that it's about principles, evenly applied to everyone. This, on the other hand, is the majority party seeking to pass a bad law and exempting it's own constituents, thus acknowledging that it has nothing to do with greater principles. I guess it's just another sign of the juvenile political era that we live in. The principles only exist as a vague narrative to organize the endless demonization of the opposing side.

In this case, cooler heads prevailed in the Senate if not in the House. I dearly hope that if they revisit this topic next year, they'll endeavor to find a law that can be applied equally to Brentwood *and* Nashville.

[Nashville Cliff]

23 hours ago, PruneTracy said:

Now I'm not a...

...fancy, big-city lawyer but ultimately the state has sovereignty over municipalities, Dillon's Rule and all that.

It doesn't help matters that Nashville, unlike Memphis, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, doesn't operate under a home-rule charter.

Home rule charters are no panacea for local autonomy, and Nashville's metro charter arguably gives it more local control than Tennessee's weak home rule charters do.  Even when there is a home rule charter, in cases of disagreement, the courts almost always side with states over locals.  Sad that Judge Cooley lost out to Judge Dillon.

[Hey_Hey]

I get the reason why states take precedence over cities (states are sovereign in our system and cities derive all power from the states), but that doesn't mean I agree with the state micro-managing every little thing that comes along. I disagreed with the legislation when it was going to prevent municipalities from regulating STRs, and my disagreement turned to infuriation when the House voted to single out individual municipalities (and later just Nashville).  If the Tennessee House of Rep's position was that government shouldn't interfere with private operation of STRs, then why does that only apply in Nashville?  Are property owners' rights in Hendersonville, Jackson, or Oak Ridge less important than property owners' right in Nashville?

I'm glad to see this get deferred this year. 

[TnNative]

Quote

 

So is there anywhere to see how each state representative voted? I am particular interested in how the representatives that represent the areas that would have been affected (metro Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis, Chattanooga) and the outer laying counties after these locales where taken out of the "mix". I was all for owner occupied. Non owner occupied is an abomination to already established residential neighborhoods. It is troubling that Air BnB and their 7 lobbyist still pushed this just on Nashville when it when it was clear other areas/cities were not going to be affected.

To me, the worse thing about non owner occupied houses is not the possibility of large parties or loud people. It is having empty houses sitting around when no one is there. No one starting families, no neighbors, no kids using the local schools. This is not a residential neighborhood, this is a commercial district. I am trying to raise kids in an urban neighborhood, I want them to have friends and I want to have friends and good neighbors. Unfortunately, the fox has been let into the hen house. Money has been smelled. My opinion, this will absolutely wreck neighborhoods like Lockeland Springs, Edgefield, Germantown. The ones closest to downtown. EDIT: At best, another reason for people to move to the suburbs. At worst - They will become fake neighborhoods.

[AronG]

1 hour ago, TnNative said:

So is there anywhere to see how each state representative voted? I am particular interested in how the representatives that represent the areas that would have been affected (metro Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis, Chattanooga) and the outer laying counties after these locales where taken out of the "mix". I was all for owner occupied. Non owner occupied is an abomination to already established residential neighborhoods. It is troubling that Air BnB and their 7 lobbyist still pushed this just on Nashville when it when it was clear other areas/cities were not going to be affected.

To me, the worse thing about non owner occupied houses is not the possibility of large parties or loud people. It is having empty houses sitting around when no one is there. No one starting families, no neighbors, no kids using the local schools. This is not a residential neighborhood, this is a commercial district. I am trying to raise kids in an urban neighborhood, I want them to have friends and I want to have friends and good neighbors. Unfortunately, the fox has been let into the hen house. Money has been smelled. My opinion, this will absolutely wreck neighborhoods like Lockeland Springs, Edgefield, Germantown. The ones closest to downtown. They will become fake neighborhoods.

As far as how legislators voted, this is from the Tennesseean article (http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/09/short-term-rental-bill-targeting-nashville-delayed-2018/314225001/):

Quote

“This is not a property rights issue, this is a quality of life issue,” said Rep. John Ray Clemmons, D-Nashville, who spoke against the bill at length on Monday.
Nashville's Democratic delegation all voted against the legislation except for Rep. Jason Powell, D-Nashville, who did not vote on the bill. He told The Tennessean that he has a couple of properties operating as short-term rentals and wanted to avoid any conflict.

House Speaker Beth Harwell voted against the legislation as well along with all three of Williamson County's Republican representatives: Glen Casada, Charles Sargent and Sam Whitson.

So at least a few Republicans from areas that would have been affected (if they weren't exempted) did the right thing and voted against it. But not many, because it still ended up 53-35 in favor.

And I agree 100% on the real impact of this not being partiers or whatever. I'm in Lockeland Springs, also with kids looking for playmates, and the houses that are non-owner-occupied AirBnBs are just gaps in the neighborhood. But I don't think we have to give up quite yet (fox, hen house, etc.). There's still a perfectly happy medium on this, which is to allow and/or encourage owner-occupied AirBnBs for those who are interested. I have several neighbors who AirBnB a room, a floor, or a detached garage unit, and it works great. You get a complete neighborhood filled with residents AND the extra money and foot traffic from tourists. AND on-site supervision of any rowdiness that occurs. It's actually somewhat of a return to what the neighborhood was like 100 years ago, when most homeowners let out rooms to renters. And I think it's what Metro's going to be shooting for if the state doesn't override them.

[samsonh]

10 minutes ago, AronG said:

As far as how legislators voted, this is from the Tennesseean article (http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/09/short-term-rental-bill-targeting-nashville-delayed-2018/314225001/):

So at least a few Republicans from areas that would have been affected (if they weren't exempted) did the right thing and voted against it. But not many, because it still ended up 53-35 in favor.

And I agree 100% on the real impact of this not being partiers or whatever. I'm in Lockeland Springs, also with kids looking for playmates, and the houses that are non-owner-occupied AirBnBs are just gaps in the neighborhood. But I don't think we have to give up quite yet (fox, hen house, etc.). There's still a perfectly happy medium on this, which is to allow and/or encourage owner-occupied AirBnBs for those who are interested. I have several neighbors who AirBnB a room, a floor, or a detached garage unit, and it works great. You get a complete neighborhood filled with residents AND the extra money and foot traffic from tourists. AND on-site supervision of any rowdiness that occurs. It's actually somewhat of a return to what the neighborhood was like 100 years ago, when most homeowners let out rooms to renters. And I think it's what Metro's going to be shooting for if the state doesn't override them.

Agree with this. My condo building does not allow short term rentals, although we did have some owners attempt to AirBnb their places. The guest were usually quiet and fine, but occasionally loud and disruptive. It is a quality of life issue. I think with the massive influx of new hotels this will drive the profitability of AirBnbs down in this city, creating less incentive for non-owner occupied units.

[CenterHill]

7 hours ago, AronG said:

You get a complete neighborhood filled with residents AND the extra money and foot traffic from tourists. AND on-site supervision of any rowdiness that occurs. It's actually somewhat of a return to what the neighborhood was like 100 years ago, when most homeowners let out rooms to renters. And I think it's what Metro's going to be shooting for if the state doesn't override them.

It is.   Metro's current ordinance allows Type I (owner occupied), Type II (non-owner occupied) and Type III (multi-tenant) and allows them to operate in any zoning district.  Type II's have a limit of 3% per census tract (which codes does not really enforce).    Council's proposed amendment to the ordinance that Airbnb is fighting and is trying to persuade the state to preempt, would only address Type IIs operating in residentially-zoned neighborhoods R, RS and a few other designations).   Type II permits would be gradually phased out of residential neighborhoods after 2 years.