HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 9-23-19 Work SessionSeptember 23, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 23, 2019
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AND
EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY WORK SESSION Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of September 23, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AND
EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1. Committee Reports and Items of Interest
2. WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Downtown Riverfront Development—
Williams & Dame Associates’ Concept Plan
3. WORK SESSION: Short-Term Rentals
September 23, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session and Action: Downtown Riverfront Development— Williams & Dame Associates’ Concept Plan Meeting Date: September 23, 2019 Agenda Item: 2 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Michael Kinnison
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5500
ISSUE STATEMENT At this work session, staff will provide an update on the Downtown Riverfront project, including the park, site preparation and infrastructure work. The Agency Board is also asked to review and take action on proposed changes to the Downtown Riverfront concept plan from Williams & Dame Associates (see Attachment A).
BACKGROUND The Agency Board’s discussion of Downtown Riverfront redevelopment is part of a decades-long community planning and visioning effort to connect downtown to the river. The agency purchased about 17 acres of largely vacant Downtown Riverfront property from the Eugene Water & Electric Board in April 2018. On January 24, 2019, the agency signed a Disposition and Development Agreement with WDA. The City purchased the park for one dollar in December 2018 and has since begun work on grading and riverbank enhancement. Park construction will continue in 2020 with full development of park amenities including viewing platforms, public art, a realigned bike path, and more, to realize the community’s vision of an urban riverfront park balanced by habitat enhancements and river conservation.
Park Update This summer, construction crews have been preparing the site for the Downtown Riverfront Park, including utility relocation and riparian and bank enhancement work. The existing steep, cliff-like riverbank is being recontoured in places to provide a more natural slope improving views and allowing closer access to the river. Non-native vegetation and trees are being removed and will be replaced this fall and winter with over 20,000 native species of live stakes, shrubs, and bulbs. Park construction will continue next spring and summer with completion anticipated by the end of the 2020 calendar year.
Site Preparation Site preparation is well underway, including riverbank restoration/riparian enhancement and contouring (grading) the site to accommodate the park, streets, utilities, and buildings. Contractors have been working throughout the spring and summer to prepare the site for the
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
infrastructure to be built in 2020. By this October, the site will be stabilized and prepared for the rainy season.
Infrastructure and the Local Improvement District Based on council direction initiating the Local Improvement District process, engineering and design work for site infrastructure is well underway. Construction bids are estimated to be received in early 2020 and will be presented at a public hearing before a hearings official. Council action to form the LID and authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract is estimated for spring 2020. Subsequent to the completion of construction and a public hearing on proposed assessments, council will take action on an ordinance levying the assessments, expected for early 2021.
Proposed Concept Plan Changes The current concept plan and proposed changes are depicted side by side in Attachment A. Here is a summary of the changes being proposed: A. Combine lots 9A with 9B and 10A with 10B
o Allows for taller buildings (4 stories instead of 3) and moves from surface parking to structured parking on new lots 9 and 10 and existing lot 7
o Removes private alleys that separated parcels and consolidates building footprint into one structure on new lots 9 and 10
o Potentially could shift access to lots 9 and 10 to the primary street adjacent to the railroad B. Hotel moved to lot 3 (from lot 7) C. Affordable housing moved to lot 3 (from lot 10A) The proposed changes would increase WDA’s level of investment and the number of residential units being developed. Previously, the total site estimated investment for WDA was $100 million with about 340 housing units. WDA anticipates that under the proposed concept plan change, the investment in the first phase of the project on the multi-family housing buildings on parcels 7, 9, and 10 will be approximately $115 million and about 500 units. The City/Agency share of the costs and level of involvement will remain the same. The private investment will, in turn, generate new taxable value. Over thirty years, the increased density of development on 7, 9, and 10 will generate about $3.5 million more in property taxes to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, the City, Lane County, School District 4J, Lane Community College, and Lane Education Service District combined, for an estimated total of $45.5 million over the 30-year period. Of the total amount, the District will collect about $500,000 by the time it sunsets in 2024, and the City will collect about $22.8 million from 2025 to 2050. Additional potential benefits from the proposed changes include:
Accelerates the timeline on vertical development for lots 7 and 9 resulting in more eyes on the park sooner and contributing to activity and safety of public spaces. If approved, the proposed concept change would have construction anticipated to begin on lot 7 or 9 in the fall of 2020. The timing for construction of affordable housing would be unchanged.
Increased housing density and the addition of structured parking is a more efficient use of the land and consistent with a more sustainable, urban development form.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Structured parking increases the overall parking capacity and presents an opportunity for shared parking to serve the park and retail uses during the day.
Additional retail space to be provided on lot 9 adjacent to the plaza.
Provides potential for road between lots 9 and 10 and the road between 10 and the Steam Plant to become more pedestrian oriented with improved access points to the park.
Affordable housing proposed in a location (lot 3) with more convenient access to services, including transportation, and incrementally farther from train noise. The majority of the Downtown Riverfront site is within an Opportunity Zone (see Attachment B). The Opportunity Zone Program is a federal investment incentive program established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The program provides tax benefits for real estate development and business investments in designated, low-income areas. Council action is not required to authorize private equity investments in Opportunity Zones. The Riverfront Opportunity Zone has attracted investor interest and provides WDA an opportunity to build significantly more housing than was envisioned in their previous concept plan.
Advisory Committee The River Guides are scheduled to meet on September 19 to review the proposed concept plan changes. Staff will provide the River Guides’ recommendation to the Agency Board at the work session.
Next Steps If the Agency Board approves the proposed changes, the Agency and WDA will sign an amendment to the DDA and continue working to satisfy the remaining due diligence efforts. A number of City/Agency actions will be necessary before WDA is obligated to purchase the property, including budget authorization, MUPTE approval, and the third step of the LID—all requiring action by council and providing a number of opportunities for public input.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION January 31, 2018, Work Session
Riverfront update and WDA representatives presented their project proposal, including the concept plan. July 9, 2018, Work Session
Council authorized the Agency Director to approve a disposition and development agreement with WDA.
Council initiated the process for the necessary land use code and plan amendments to enable the development of the downtown riverfront consistent with the concept plan presented by WDA.
Council initiated consideration of a proposed LID and directed the City Manager to return with the report described in section 7.160(6) of the Eugene Code, so that the council can determine whether to proceed with the LID.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
July 23, 2018, Work Session
Authorized the Agency Director to sell lot 10A to WDA to build (solely or in partnership with another entity) no fewer than 75 units of affordable housing. The units shall be affordable to households at or below 60 percent of the area median income. February 19, 2019, Work Session
Update on the Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment project. April 15, 2019, Work Session
Approved the use of $8 million of Riverfront Urban Renewal funds for the park and $4 million for the plaza. July 22, 2019, Work Session
Approved the land use amendments necessary to carry out implementation of the WDA concept plan and development of the park on the Downtown Riverfront site.
AGENCY BOARD OPTIONS 1. Approve the proposed change in the concept plan. 2. Reject the proposed change in the concept plan.
AGENCY DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION The Agency Director recommends approval of the proposed changes to the concept plan.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to authorize the Agency Director to amend the Disposition and Development Agreement consistent with the proposed changes in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS A. Concept Plan – Current and Proposed Changes B. Downtown Riverfront and Opportunity Zones Map
FOR MORE INFORMATION Contact: Michael Kinnison, Community Development Director Telephone: 541-682-5500 Staff E-Mail: mkinnison@eugene-or.gov
Hi
g
h
S
t
Hil
y
a
r
d
S
t
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
Fer
r
y
S
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fe
r
r
y
S
t
E 6th Ave
E 7th Ave
E 5th Ave
Mi
l
l
S
t
Mi
l
l
S
t
E 8th Ave
E 8t
h
W
i
l
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
A l t o n B a k e r
P a r k
R
i
v
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
P
a
r
k
E W E B
H e a d q u a r t e r s
B u i l d i n g
5 t h S t
P u b l i c
M a r k e t
N o r t h w e s t
C o m m u n i t y
C r e d i t
U n i o n
S k i n n e r
B u t t e
P a r k
P
A
R
K
AF
F
O
R
D
A
B
L
E
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
CITY PARK &
PUBLIC PLAZA
Townhomes
HOUSING
Multi-family
HOUSING
STEAM
PLANT
HOTEL or
Multi-family
HOUSING
COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT
Townhomes
HOUSING
Townhomes
HOUSING
Quiet Zone Crossings
Developer to purchase
Agency to keep
Riverfront Site - Agency Purchased
Developer to ground lease- Agency to keep
0 100
Ft [
Multi-family
HOUSING
Hi
g
h
S
t
Hil
y
a
r
d
S
t
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
Fer
r
y
S
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fe
r
r
y
S
t
E 6th Ave
E 7th Ave
E 5th Ave
Mi
l
l
S
t
Mi
l
l
S
t
E 8th Ave
E 8t
h
Existing Concept Plan Proposed Concept Plan
SOUTHERN
ACCESS
P
A
R
K
VIADUCT
OPEN SPACE W
i
l
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
A l t o n B a k e r
P a r k
R
i
v
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
P
a
r
k
E W E B
H e a d q u a r t e r s
B u i l d i n g
5 t h S t
P u b l i c
M a r k e t
N o r t h w e s t
C o m m u n i t y
C r e d i t
U n i o n
S k i n n e r
B u t t e
P a r k
SUBSTATIONDeveloper to purchase
Agency to keep
Riverfront site - Agency purchased
Developer to ground lease- Agency to keep
Quiet zone crossings
Developer to purchase - specic locations TBD for
aordable housing, multi-family housing, & hotel
0 100
Ft [
9B
9A
10A
10B
3A
3B
3C
6
1
2
4
8
5
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
HO
U
S
I
N
G
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
s
H
O
U
S
I
N
G
Townhomes
HOUSING
Townhomes
HOUSING
Multi-family
HOUSING
SUBSTATION
SOUTHERN
ACCESS
VIADUCT
OPEN SPACE
7
9/9/2019
3
10
9
5
6
1
2
4
8
7
CITY PARK &
PUBLIC PLAZA
Townhomes
HOUSING
Multi-family
HOUSING
STEAM
PLANT
Multi-family
HOUSING
COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT
Townhomes
HOUSING
Townhomes
HOUSING
Multi-family
HOUSING
Affordable
HOUSING
Multi-family
HOUSING
HOTEL
Multi-family
HOUSING
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
A
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
3
,
2
0
1
9
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
–
I
t
e
m
2
Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment Site & Opportunity Zones
ATTACHMENT B
0 100
Ft [
Opportunity Zone data from State of Oregon
Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only.
City of Eugene Planning and Development
9/6/2019
3
7
9
10
6
1
2
4
8
5
Hi
g
h
S
t
Hil
y
a
r
d
S
t
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
Fer
r
y
S
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
Fe
r
r
y
S
t
E 6th Ave
E 7th Ave
E 5th Ave
Mi
l
l
S
t
Mi
l
l
S
t
E 8th Ave
E 8t
h
P
A
R
K
W
i
l
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
R
i
v
e
r
A l t o n B a k e r
P a r k
R
i
v
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
P
a
r
k
E W E B
H e a d q u a r t e r s
B u i l d i n g
5 t h S t
P u b l i c
M a r k e t
N o r t h w e s t
C o m m u n i t y
C r e d i t
U n i o n
S k i n n e r
B u t t e
P a r k
SUBSTATION
SOUTHERN
ACCESS
STEAM PLANT
Riverfront site - agency purchased
Opportunity Zones (based on census tracts)
Riverfront site with parcels
September 23, 2019, Meeting – Item 2
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Short-Term Rentals Meeting Date: September 23, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Lydia Kaye
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5482
ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council requested information regarding short-term rentals, specifically regarding the positive and negative effects as well as what types of regulations other cities have adopted. Council also requested regulatory options (from minimal to outright prohibition) and asked how taxes paid compare to those paid by the hotel industry. This work session will address these issues.
BACKGROUND Short-term rentals are generally considered rentals available for 30 days or fewer, though this definition isn’t codified locally or by the State. STRs are permitted and currently considered a residential use in the City of Eugene. STRs in single-family residential zones are required to comply with the definition of family. That is, no more than five unrelated people can stay in a single-family dwelling. There is no limit to the number of related persons that can occupy a single-family dwelling. Short-term rentals in Eugene are required to pay a Transient Room Tax. Not all cities require short-term rentals to pay such a tax. On September 4, 2019, the Land Conservation and Development Commission upheld Eugene’s interpretation that STRs are a permitted use in a single-family residential zone. LCDC discussed Eugene’s STRs in response to a Petition for an Enforcement Order against the City of Eugene. LCDC determined there was not good cause to proceed with the Enforcement Order. Short-term rentals are most commonly provided through hosting platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO (Vacation Rental by Owner), and HomeToGo. Because this phenomenon is relatively recent, there is not a large amount of data available. Much of the information is provided by the platforms. To provide an informed, impartial response to the council’s inquiries, staff utilized the services of Eugene Library staff who have prepared a thorough white-paper on the issue (Attachment A), which summarizes much of the research. Another significant reference is a document by Sadie Dinatale of the University of Oregon’s Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management (2017) which reviews STRs as they pertain to Oregon. A link to Dinatale’s document is provided in Attachment A.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
The platforms that facilitate short-term rentals are described in Dinatale’s report as a means to give people access to a user-friendly, global marketplace for home sharing. Some of the benefits identified are:
o Increased tourism in local communities, which can increase spending in a local economy (some note this would occur if these travelers utilized more traditional sources like hotels)
o Adding jobs (in servicing STRs) to the local economy
o Helping property owners earn extra income
o Offering visitors a local experience
o Contributing to Transient Room Taxes In addition to benefits, there are perceived negative impacts of STRs including the loss of tax revenue (where a TRT is not collected) and perceived impacts on traditional lodging business. The research reviewed by staff did not validate impacts to lodging businesses. Other impacts identified are:
o Nuisance issues, including noise, garbage and increased traffic
o Impacts to livability by creating a sense that people in neighborhood are transitory
o Impacts to affordable and available housing There has been a great deal of discussion about whether and to what extent STRs impact housing affordability and availability. While it does appear that STRs impact both, the research varies regarding to what degree. Many short-term rentals are offered for a few days per year, so they are not removed as housing stock. Dinatale’s report indicates that approximately 70 percent of Airbnb hosts generate less than $10,000 per year and of those, 30 percent generate less than $600/year. Several communities in Oregon and across the nation have chosen to regulate STRs through licensing requirements and there are several different standards that apply with varying frequency. Options for consideration are:
o Outright ban
o License and renewal fee
o Owner-occupancy requirement
o Limit the number of days a unit can be rented
o Limit STRs to certain areas
o Separation requirements between STRs (existing units would likely be grandfathered)
o Inspection requirements
o Permit revocation based on number of complaints per calendar year
o Requirements for on-line platforms to assist in regulations
o Parking requirements Staff have spoken with a representative from the NLC as well as from the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association. Neither of these entities is requesting that STRs be banned. Rather, the request is that they are regulated to mitigate negative impacts to neighborhoods. ORLA indicates that the most effective city regulations are ones that include accountability for the online
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
platforms, ensuring that they play a role policing the illegal rentals. For example, requiring hosting platforms to prohibit booking any service transaction without proof of a license from the municipality. Additional limitations, such as the number of days a unit is to be rented, could also be the responsibility of the platforms. Cities that have implemented ordinances with such language include San Francisco, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Boston, Washington DC, and Honolulu. In reviewing regulations in other communities, the requirement for owner occupancy is common, as is the requirement for licensing and annual renewal. The licensing and renewal fees are utilized to run the program and implement the regulations. Requiring owner occupancy would preclude homes being bought by non-homeowners for the sole purpose of using them for short-term rentals. Some communities require an owner occupy the home a specified number of days to determine owner occupancy, though confirming this may be challenging. Regulations could include a prohibition on license renewal if a specified number of violations occur within a calendar year. Additional information on local regulations and geographic distribution of STRs will be provided at the work session. If council is interested in regulating short-term rentals, the existing business license program could administer STR regulations. Amendments to Chapter 3 could begin with a public hearing with council’s direction. Staff note that a land use process would be required to make amendments to parking requirements contained in Chapter 9.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION None
COUNCIL OPTIONS This work session is informational only.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION There is no recommendation at this time.
ATTACHMENTS A. Short-Term Rentals; Issues and Possible Solutions
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lydia Kaye Telephone: 541-682-5482 Staff E-Mail: lkaye@eugene-or.gov
Short term rentals
Issues and possible solutions
Eugene Public Library
Adult Services
One of many phenomena enabled and expanded by the Internet is the platform for short-term rentals
(STRs), by which those living in a house, apartment or other domicile rent that space for short periods to
(usually) vacationers, often coinciding with their own vacations but increasingly done as a full-time
business. Companies have sprung up online as middlemen who ease the transactions for host and
customer, earning a profit themselves. As with other parts of the “sharing economy,” cities have
struggled with properly licensing and taxing this activity, while managing or alleviating its effects. Some
have so far done nothing, some have possibly tried to do too much. Among STR platform companies
Airbnb is the dominant player, around whom most of the research and controversy pivots. Many studies
cover STRs as a whole while inevitably centering on Airbnb, others specifically focus on that company. In
what follows the industry and the particular company are usually interchangeable.
STRs and the housing market
Do STRs, and in particular Airbnb, cause home prices and rental rates to go up? The kernel of the issue is
the incentive of financial rewards. A homeowner can earn more from renting his property for various
short terms than one long term.
A comprehensive paper by Barron, Kung and Proserpio analyzed Airbnb listings in the United States from
2012 to 2016, matched with house prices and rental rates from Zillow. They found that “a 1% increase in
Airbnb listings leads to a 0.018% increase in rents and a 0.026% increase in house prices.” And there is a
general increase in the supply of short-term rental units, and a corresponding decrease in long-term
rental units. They are careful to account for all factors at work, and nuances such as the variance
between and within zip codes (the more affluent, and less owner-occupied, homes are more likely to
become STRs, though another paper finds STRs more prevalent in slightly lower-income areas). They put
forward a mild recommendation of trying to limit the favoring of short-term over long-term rentals via
an occupancy tax on those who rent their entire home for an extended period, and of requiring proof of
owner occupancy to avoid this tax.
A study by Merante and Horn puts it in terms only a statistician could love: “…a one standard deviation
increase in Airbnb density (in a census tract) is correlated with a 5.9% decrease in the number of rental
units offered for rent.” One twist they found is that almost half of the Airbnb-listed units in Boston are
by those with more than one simultaneous listing, frequently the case in larger cities and a source of ire
for the more opinionated authors.
Ariel Stulberg’s 2015 study in The Real Deal focusing on New York City mentions a study by NYU’s
Furman Center that removing a figure that hovers around 1% of the housing stock results in median rent
rising by 1.2 to 2.3 percent. TRD’s own analysis found that in different clusters of NYC neighborhoods, if
Airbnb listings became regular rentals, the median rent would drop by $37 to $69, $39 to $67 and $30 to
ATTACHMENT A
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
$57 (starting from around $3,000; this is New York City after all). Airbnb disputed the numbers and did
its own (unavailable) study which found rent increases of only $6 per month. The article admits to
complications arising from gaps in data and in the end characterizes its findings as “a back-of-the-
envelope approximation.”
An advocacy organization, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) released a study in March
2015 that is urgent in tone, tying Airbnb to higher rents and thousands of units being taken off the
market. They find that neighborhoods with “Airbnb market density” (stopping short of a specific figure)
have average rents 20% higher than the citywide average. A figure (p.19) comparing median rent
between Airbnb top neighborhoods and citywide median rent over a two-year period shows the former
climbing by 16%, the latter by 12%. Predictably, the top Airbnb areas are the most touristy (p.29), and
here the incentives are felt most keenly. As an example they mention an apartment complex (p. 16) in
Venice Beach listed by Coldwell Banker for sale, contrasting the $200,000 potential annual income
expected by renting the units (and they are rent-controlled) versus a possible $477,000 per year
assuming a total conversion to Airbnb units—a worst-case scenario in their opinion.
Sheppard and Udall of Williams College rely entirely on modeling and speculation to conclude that
“doubling of the total number of Airbnb properties within 300 meters of a house is associated with an
increase in property value of 6% to 9% (depending on model specification)” (p.41) and that having
Airbnb properties “nearby” increases a house’s price by from 3.5% to 65% (p.42). The fact that these
conclusions are reached by theory alone—and are the only two readable sentences in the paper—hasn’t
stopped them from being cited by other authors.
In a complicated paper, David Wachsmuth and Alexander Weisler of McGill University argue that by
creating a “rent gap,” the presence of Airbnb leads to gentrification, at least in New York City. They cite
another study which contends that “the 20 neighborhoods most popular on Airbnb have lost 105 of
their rental units,” lowering the availability for residents. This more limited point has been noted in
other sources as well as their contention about gentrification, viewed as negative.
A report focusing on Oakland found that neighborhoods in that city with the highest Airbnb density have
less rental vacancies. They present a pair of tables (p.12) which, while the visual match isn’t perfect,
show a correlation between Airbnb reviews for entire home listings and rent price increases in the city’s
Bushrod neighborhood. Nevertheless they make a leap from Oakland having a housing crisis to SRTs
being responsible, painting a picture of “neighborhoods under siege” (p.10) while noting early on that
the area was experiencing a growing demand for housing even without STR companies to “burst onto
the scene.”
It’s logical that an inelastic housing supply with an increasing housing demand will result in shortages
and higher selling prices and rents, even without the impetus of STRs. Currently there are anecdotal
reports of investors buying properties in Eugene intending them for use as STRs, raising the specter of
shrinking the housing for residents. This author knows one person whose tenancy was terminated after
his landlord opted to use his building exclusively for STRs; another resided at an upmarket complex
downtown whose tenants have received strong suggestions from the owners that they should “make
use” of their apartments as STRs when they vacationed.
The degree of price increase posited by Barron, Kung and Proserpio may be less alarming than that in
other studies as they have taken a very high resolution view, though even after all other factors are
figured in, Airbnb still explains part of the increase in rent. There is no necessary connection between an
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
expensive STR and the monthly rates paid at the next residence. It’s when a long-term unit becomes a
short-term unit (conversion) that pressure is exerted on rates.
The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb. Kyle Barron, Edward
Kung, Davide Proserpio. SSRN, July 2017/June 2019.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006832
Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston. Mark Merante, Keren Mertens
Horn. Dept. of Economics, University of Massachusetts Boston. 2016.
http://repec.umb.edu/RePEc/files/2016_03.pdf
How much does Airbnb affects rents in NYC? Ariel Stulberg. The Real Deal. Oct. 14, 2015.
https://therealdeal.com/2015/10/14/how-much-does-airbnb-impact-nyc-rents/
Airbnb, rising rent, and the housing crisis in Los Angeles. Roy Samaan, LAANE. March 2015.
https://www.laane.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf
Do Airbnb properties affect house prices? Stephen Sheppard and Andrew Udell. Williams College Dept.
of Economics. Jan. 1, 2018.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c41a/555192f8b8a63413cfd461f4295b95123e6f.pdf?_ga=2.1525041.1
044339924.1566438551-620960455.1566438551
Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy. David Wachsmuch and
Alexander Weisler. School of Urban Planning, McGill University. July 7, 2014.
https://davidwachsmuth.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/wachsmuth-weisler-airbnb-draft.pdf (This link is
to the draft. The .pdf at Researchgate cuts off some of the text on the right edge.)
The impact of short term rentals on affordable housing in Oakland: A report and recommendations.
Dessi Mia Carbajal. Community Economics, Inc and East Bay Housing Organizations. December 2015.
https://www.naceda.org/assets/EBHO%20Short%20Term%20Rental%20Impact%20Report.pdf
Economic and other impacts
Short-term rentals create impacts other than on the housing market, some financial, some involving the
quality of life in a city and its neighborhoods. STRs in this context are bound up with discussion of the
tourist industry and accommodations sector of local economies.
Russ Klettke of the Vacation Rental Management Association paints a predictably rosy—not necessarily
false—picture of the economic benefits to communities from vacation rentals (Airbnb is not specifically
mentioned), noting economic activity in general and job creation in particular. It should be mentioned
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
that research conducted for the “numerous studies” he cites was conducted by industry players
themselves including Airbnb and Homeaway. He plausibly notes that visitors patronize all manner of
local businesses during their stays; a contractor in the Poconos resort region estimates $1 million in
spending per year by guests in the area. Even a nondescript location like St. Joseph, Michigan, by the
author’s estimation, has 300 workers servicing STRs.
Cited by Klettke above, a 2015 study by NUSIPR looked at the economic impact of STRs in San Diego,
analyzing data from the 2014-2015 fiscal year. 6,100 STR units (at the FY end) generated $110.3 million
in lodging revenue and another $86.4 million in visitor-related spending, with a total economic impact of
$285 million and supporting 1,842 jobs. Transient occupancy taxes collected came to over $11 million.
Significantly, in light of anti-STR lobbying efforts by the hospitality industry, hotel occupancy rates and
revenues do not seem to have been affected.
Also cited by Klettke is a study of STRs’ impact on Galveston, TX, this too by a STR trade group. It found
that in 2013 STRs created $283 million (out of a visitor-related total of $951.8 million) in economic
activity and accounted for 3,100 jobs. Galveston is heavily dependent on tourism: “Tourism-generated
tax revenues, not including hotel occupancy tax revenues, accounted for more than half of the City of
Galveston’s General Fund budget of $42.9 million in 2013.” Based on the numbers above it could be
stated that STRs contributed a bit under a third of that half. Guests at STRs enjoy a cost savings
compared to hotel stays, yet the report does not mention an adverse effect on the local hotel industry
and the table of indicators (p.3) does not seem to reflect it.
A short regional committee document from Nevada presents some raw numbers from Las Vegas, likely
from 2015, showing total Airbnb room revenue of $19.5 million, subject to a room tax rate of 12% and
yielding $2.3 million to local coffers. Interestingly that city did not have a Community Compact with
Airbnb, which the company itself claims would result in more tax revenue collected.
In contrast, Josh Bivens and the Economic Policy Institute, focusing specifically on Airbnb, posits that the
company’s costs outweigh its benefits. More precisely, “the costs to renters and local jurisdictions likely
exceed the benefits to travelers and property owners.” Among his points are that travel and its
associated spending will happen whether or not accommodation is with Airbnb, so economic benefits
are overstated; travelers don’t save very much; tax payments are less reliable; and externalities damage
the quality of life for those near Airbnb locations. He sharpens his political ax in speculating that since
most housing wealth is held by whites (p.8) they will disproportionately enrich themselves further.
Dan Bucks also disagrees that Airbnb is a good deal for localities and says the agreements between the
company and local governments actually result in lower compliance (to below 37 per cent). Part of the
reason is that Airbnb is selective about distributing 1099 reports, which reduces compliance by 56 per
cent. He is also among the many who criticize the company for its secrecy, the voluntary agreements
with states and localities asking as a mask to prevent further inquiry. He gives further examples of tax
chicanery by which risk is passed from Airbnb to others, and recommends far more transparency from
Airbnb and independent auditing of their accounts.
Many of the cited sources allude to negative externalities that can be realized by long-term residents
when STRs are prevalent in an area. An article by Nicole Gurran and Peter Phibbs reviews the effects of
STRs on Sydney, Australia, a city that experiences not only a heavy influx of tourists, but of younger
travelers who would rather sojourn in a “neighborhood” than a hotel. This article is one of the more
convincing in positing a link between a high number of STRs and a tighter housing market with higher
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
rents. The comments on externalities (p.87) are representative of those in other sources: Partying and
noise, extra garbage and parking congestion, especially when happening repeatedly, can degrade the
quality of life for residents. A more subtle and pervasive change, though, is one they note from another
source: “…a more general disquiet about the increasing presence of visitors in the neighborhood…” The
parade of new people week upon week in the same premises brings “a feeling of unease”—as a stable
neighborhood takes on the character of a transient one.
Advocacy series: Vacation rentals generate jobs, local economic stability. Russ Klettke. Vacation Rental
Management Association. April 23, 2019.
http://advocacy.vrma.org/blog/vacation-rentals-generate-jobs,-local-economic-stability
Short-term rentals in the city of San Diego: An economic impact analysis. National University System
Institute for Policy Research. October 2015.
http://www.nusinstitute.org/assets/resources/pageResources/NUSIPR_Short_Term_Rentals.pdf
The local economic impact of short term rentals in Galveston, Texas. TXP, Inc. Fall 2014.
http://www.stradvocacy.org/useruploads/files/Galveston-STR-Report-FINAL-101314.pdf
Short-term rentals inventory and revenue. Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee. (2016)
http://sntic.org/meeting/10/staff/SNTIC%20Airbnb%20Inventory%20and%20Revenue%20Summary%20
FINAL.pdf
Airbnb: Generating $2.5 billion in potential tax revenue for America’s cities. Airbnb Citizen. 2017.
https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/US-Tax-Report3.pdf
The economic costs and benefits of Airbnb. Josh Bivens. Economic Policy Institute. Jan. 30, 2019.
https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/157766.pdf
Report: States and localities are losing money on Airbnb’s tax deals. Dan Bucks. American Hotel and
Lodging Association. June 2019.
https://www.ahla.com/sites/default/files/bucks_report_states_localities_losing_money_on_airbnb_tax
_deals_june_2019.pdf
When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb? Nicole Gurran & Peter Phibbs.
Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter 2017.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944363.2016.1249011?needAccess=true
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
Legislative and administrative responses
Legally and administratively, how have cities dealt with STRs and their growth? A frequently adversarial
relationship has grown between participants in the industry and nonparticipants, with local
governments caught in the unhappy role of a mediator who welcomes a piece of the potential rewards
but must try to preserve the character of its neighborhoods and the quality of life of its permanent
citizens. The platform companies are often seen as the villains, and their distance from the
consequences of their policies can blot their reputation, while coalitions against them can be unstable
marriages of convenience. The bete noir, Airbnb, has not been consistent itself. The company obstructs
efforts to monitor it yet at other times seems cooperative and eager for cities to share in the wealth. In
2015 it created a Community Compact by which the company partners with cities by collecting and
remitting taxes to them.
An article by Dana Palombo, as well as providing a good introduction to the sharing economy and STRs,
details two opposing approaches to Airbnb, specifically by New York City and San Francisco. Leaders in
NYC have opted for a restrictive approach aimed to preserve the city’s economic stability while SF—the
company’s birthplace--has chosen to work with Airbnb and accept a certain amount of volatility.
NYC has legally fought Airbnb as “illegal hotels” while Airbnb—their appeals tailored to present the
company as a possible abettor of social programs—has offered to collect the requisite taxes, claiming
the city is missing out on up to $65 million. Much hinges on the inability of cities to glimpse Airbnb’s true
earnings. It’s also felt they should be more forthcoming about the fact that they do not insure hosts or
guests, though their terms do explicitly mention that the parties they “match” should make such
arrangements on their own.
NYC has some unique zoning laws that Airbnb runs afoul of, but at little cost, as violations are difficult to
detect and enforce. An approach that would back off and acknowledge that STRs are going to operate
anyway would also allow collection of taxes, a sore point for hotel operators who resent the break STR
hosts are getting.
The relationship between Airbnb and San Francisco has been less adversarial. With STRs legalized there
after rocky beginnings, Airbnb has maintained it wants to follow the law and collect the 14% tax,
allowing the city to collect (by one estimate) $274 million from STRs and--as elsewhere—soothe hotel
operators by seemingly leveling the playing field. “The city is accepting home-sharing, but on its own
terms through restricting regulations.” (p.313) Among other things a STR host is limited to renting 90
nights per year, and restricts renters from themselves renting out, which would violate their lease. As in
Portland (p.317) Airbnb, whether as image-polishing or as a genuine effort, is trying to foster a
relationship with the city’s citizens and entrepreneurs as more than mercenary, via their Shared City
initiative.
With the tempting financial incentives of STRs to homeowners, municipalities may not have a choice of
whether to “allow” them. Listings can overwhelm an enforcement apparatus with sheer numbers even
when clear rules are in place. Despite an ordinance “among the toughest in the country” which entails
licensing, registration and a list of prohibited buildings, Chicago is beset with illegal rentals via Airbnb
and other vendors.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
It may be worse in Portland (who ironically, reached an early agreement with Airbnb), partly because
the permit is so expensive ($178 to rent one or two bedrooms, up to $5,000 for three to five) and the
rules so stringent, partly because the city has not been able to obtain the rental companies’ data. That
most hosts do pay the taxes on their earnings implies they are not scofflaws and that an adjustment of
the ordinance would turn them “legal.” It is difficult to tell if harm is being done, despite a Willamette
Week article speculating that if the illegal Airbnb rentals disappeared, “as many as 1,718 homes could
be made available to Portland residents instead of tourists.” (They don’t bother to add up the total days
into a figure for full-time rentals.) Hosts without permits in Petaluma, CA also voiced concerns about the
bureaucratic process inflicted on them, and considered the fees in addition to high property taxes to be
somewhat of an insult added to injury.
New Orleans’ French Quarter, likely a ground zero for STRs even before Internet-based platforms, has
seldom enforced its ban on rentals under 60 days, and given the enduring nature of the practice in that
city, coming to an arrangement that allows collection of revenue may be a nod to reality. Nevertheless
the same battle as in other cities is being replayed, with a ban on STRs in the French Quarter and a
temporary ban on issuing of licenses for whole-home rentals as of late 2018.
The three instances in which cities can collect fees from STR hosts have been handled very differently
even among large cities, as a chart in a Hurdlr article compares New York City, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago and Austin. Three of the cities don’t even charge for a business license. Several have
taxes that seem nominal compared to the 14% Transient Occupancy Tax charged in Los Angeles and San
Francisco, yet San Francisco may be one of the compliant locations due to better relations between
Airbnb and that city. The Oakland report above notes that STR businesses in that city had not been
subject to the TOT until the city signed an agreement for Airbnb to collect the tax (the Community
Compact). Even with that in place, they find what Airbnb is turning over is not the full amount. The
Stulberg article mentions a possible pressure point, at least for properties fully given over to STRs: If a
property is a de facto hotel it can be designated “commercial.”
A balance may have to be struck between what can be realistically collected with the costs of
monitoring compliance by hosts—which leads to another example of sharing economy
entrepreneurship: Vendors who will monitor STR compliance for cities. Eugene and various other
Oregon cities have availed themselves of this service, according to an August 2018 news story.
Given that keeping STRs, and Airbnb, out altogether is a tall order, some cities have opted for measures
to limit their impact. One means is to sequester them by restricting licenses to certain sections of town;
the other somewhat opposite approach is to limit their density, thus dispersing them. At least a couple
of communities in Oregon (see below) have gone these different routes.
The Internet-based STR business model is so new that cities’ code responses have had to start from
scratch, with first-try ordinances often being modified. Based on the above examples and others, the
most effective legislative approach may be to require a reasonably priced license, have streamlined
processes that don’t overly inconvenience the hosts, and have monitoring that doesn’t overstrain local
government resources but which assures collection of taxes. Because crafting effective legislation can
take several tries spread over months or years, the process should begin soon in order to take
advantage of opportunities in the near future.
A tale of two cities: The regulatory battle to incorporate short-term residential rentals into modern
law. Dana Palombo. American University Business Law Review. 4/2, 2015.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=aublr
Chicago still trying to catch up with Airbnb scofflaws. Alby gallun. Chicago Business. Dec. 18. 2017.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20171218/CRED03/171219896/airbnb-scofflaws-evade-
chicago-officials
Airbnb scofflaws stay one step ahead of the city. Abby Gallun. Chicago Business. Oct. 5, 2018.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/airbnb-scofflaws-stay-one-step-ahead-city
80 percent of Portland Airbnb-style rentals operate illegally, audit finds. Gordon R. Friedman. The
Oregonian/OregonLive. Aug. 8, 2018.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/08/80_percent_of_portland_airbnb-
.html#incart_target2box_default_news
Short-term rental regulation: Enforcement is lax and effect on housing crisis unknown. Portland City
Auditor. August 2018.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditservices/article/693525 (highlights)
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditservices/article/693466 (full report)
Portland’s short-term rental rules are such a joke that Airbnb employee ignores them. Rachel
Monahan. Willamette Week. Oct. 3, 2016.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2016/08/24/portlands-short-term-rental-rules-are-such-a-joke-that-an-
airbnb-employee-ignores-them/
Petaluma missing out on vacation rental revenue. Eric Gneckow. Petaluma Argus-Courier. Nov. 5, 2016.
https://www.petaluma360.com/news/6187269-181/petaluma-missing-out-on-vacation
How short-term rentals impact your neighborhood. Editorial tea, National Association of Realtors. Date
not given.
https://homeownershipmatters.realtor/issues/short-term-rentals-impact-neighborhood/
New Orleans weighs banning Airbnb, ‘whole home’ vacation rentals. Associated Press/USA Today. Dec.
14, 2018.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/hotels/2018/12/14/new-orleans-ban-proposal-vacation-
rentals/2309455002/
Does your city charge Airbnb tax? Aaron Lesher. Hurdlr. July 12, 2017.
https://www.hurdlr.com/blog/airbnb-city-tax-guide
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
Pacific Northwest cities hire outside vendors to police short-term rentals. Ton Banse. Oregon Public
Broadcasting. Aug. 27, 2018.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/pacific-northwest-airbnb-vacation-rentals-regulations/
Attitudes toward STRs and Airbnb
Anyone hoping to create policies on STRs will have to address strong opinions held by the public
regarding both the practice and its dominant platform. Among many factors that can shape these
opinions are evidence, self-interest, group membership, and personal visions that predate the other
three.
“Independent visual storyteller, community activist and technologist” Murray Cox’s Inside Airbnb site
uses datasets that those with computer skills can use to analyze the company’s impact in various cities
in the United States and worldwide. He also has a number of highly critical and contentious articles
about negative aspects of the company’s presence, for instance as a gentrification tool favoring whites
over blacks.
Airbnb Citizen, by contrast, has dozens of articles highlighting positive impacts the company has made
for hosts, guests, localities, even whole nations. It’s hardly a revelation that Airbnb Citizen is a product of
Airbnb itself. With attractive design and a seeming requirement for anyone in a photograph to be
beaming joyfully, it backs up claims in the articles with statistics, but no peeks behind them for
methodology or data. To be fair, some articles provide links intended to help hosts comply with local
rules, and topics such as accessibility to the disabled are covered.
The Airbnb Analyst lands somewhere in between the two opposing sites, though its articles lean more
toward the critical. They feature stories on every topic of contention involving the company, although
the stories are not quite fresh (nothing past 2017). Their factsheets are aimed at providing information
for those looking to regulate STRs, and its author is an innkeeper in Portland.
AirDNA is a fee-based tool apparently aimed at STR enterpreneurs whose “unlocked” (free) search
allows a search by city to show a map of STR locations; general statistics on average price, occupancy
rates, revenue, rental size and amenities, as well as a breakdown by platform (at the moment in Eugene,
it’s 84% Airbnb, 6% Homeaway, 10% both). These are just numbers and can be used by both friends and
foes of Airbnb and STRs.
It can be argued that Airbnb Citizen’s tools for persuasion come from the potential, while Inside Airbnb’s
come from the actual. Inside Airbnb points out that Airbnb Citizen advances the interests of Airbnb and
that its studies are framed to flatter the company, and is among many who mention Airbnb is
unforthcoming with the actual data behind what amount to press releases.
But the downsides pointed out by detractors are sometimes “potential” as well. Many of the studies
cited make claims that are not disproven, but might be accepted in a milder form. It is difficult to
separate out all relevant factors. The study by Barron et al is the most complete study of the housing
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
market aspect, and the problem looks less severe when viewed with the most exacting lens. In several
cases, authors merely juxtapose a local housing crisis with the presence of STRs, the correlation
seasoned with emotive language. The very subtitle of the Portland Auditor’s report includes “effect on
housing crisis unknown.”
The LAANE report cited above, something of an activist battle cry, is frequently cited by other authors
who are critical of STRs and especially Airbnb. Among them is Dayne Lee in Harvard Law & Policy Review
who details a very real housing crisis in Los Angeles and the likelihood that part of this may be due to
STRs and Airbnb, then appends a host of other social problems to the platform. As in the case of many
others, he only gives a nod to the other end of the problem: “…neither the market nor the public sector
can swiftly replenish the housing stock, given the time, cost, and legal barriers to developing affordable
housing in Los Angeles.” (p.235)
Where he cites the LAANE report, it is at second hand via its mention in an article in Curbed about one
successful STR entrepreneur—or group of entrepreneurs—who rent out 78 units in Los Angeles. The
Curbed article itself points out, in turn via the LAANE report, that a majority of Airbnb listings in LA are
for whole dwellings, and that many hosts don’t make any money. After that the author’s personal
distaste takes over as he sniffs at the owners’ organizational background, and the fact that their two
public faces for awhile were two white women.
The libertarian Cato Institute, by contrast, favors institutions and policies that give people more choices
and allow more decisions to be made noncentrally. So they favor a governmental response that is least
meddlesome while allowing transactions that don’t do harm to others. They are quick to cite the paper
by Barron et al since those authors’ research ended with the least apocalyptic picture of STRs’ effects on
the housing market—the effects are real, but smaller than some think. Even Cato doesn’t think STRs
should be unregulated. On this issue and others, they frequently address negative externalities, and feel
they should be paid for by those who impose them rather than by a cost levied on everyone.
A disruptor entering an established industry or business model always has opponents among the
incumbents. In the case of STRs there has been pushback from the hotel industry, which has allied with
activist groups in an otherwise unlikely pairing, united in opposition to possible loss or downgrading of
jobs. As seen above, it is debatable whether hotels have suffered at all due to STRs. And during tourist
seasons or irregular, highly popular events, both venues will likely fill to capacity. The Cato Institute
points out the hotel lobby’s disingenuous outrage about hosts with multiple STR listings, and their
vested interest in this stance. Again in the LAANE report, the authors are shocked that jobs in the hotel
sector may be lost and take a consumerist tack, portraying Airbnb rentals as looming deathtraps in
comparison to sparkling, safety-conscious hotels. Dan Bucks’ report, highly negative about Airbnb, was
written under the auspices of the American Hotel & Lodging Association—though his criticisms draw on
expertise in tax regulation rather than fervent emotion.
Inside Airbnb: Adding data to the debate
http://insideairbnb.com/index.html
The face of Airbnb, New York City: Airbnb as a racial gentrification tool. Murray Cox/ Inside Airbnb.
March 1, 2017.
http://insideairbnb.com/face-of-airbnb-nyc/
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
Airbnb Citizen
https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/
The Airbnb Analyst
http://the-airbnb-analyst.com/
How Airbnb short-term rentals exacerbate Los Angeles’s affordable housing crisis: Analysis and policy
recommendations. Dayne Lee. Harvard Law and Policy Review. 2016.
http://blogs.ubc.ca/canadianliteratureparkinson/files/2016/06/How-Airbnb-Short-term-rentals-
disrupted.pdf
Meet LA’s most prolific Airbnb host, with 78 units for rent. Adrian Glick Kudler. Curbed Los Angeles.
March 12, 2015.
https://la.curbed.com/2015/3/12/9981370/airbnb-los-angeles-most-prolific-host-ghc
Airbnb and neighborhood conflict. Peter Van Doren. Cato at Liberty. October 16, 2018.
https://www.cato.org/blog/airbnb-neighborhood-conflict
Oregon, specifically
A major document by Sadie Dinatale and the University of Oregon’s Department of Planning, Public
Policy and Management (2017) reviews the issues with short-term rentals as they pertain to Oregon and
offers suggestions on how to respond to them. Its Appendix B gathers statistics from ten resort and
coastal towns in Oregon, which indicate a general financial motive for owners to operate STRs. Appendix
C shows the legislative approach taken in each case, followed by an industry summary for all Oregon
cities with Airbnb. Very few showed no revenue for the period covered; Portland showed $64 millon+,
Eugene $8 million+, but figures did not necessarily rise in tandem with population. Many of the
communities with higher revenue were small, and located on the North Coast (p.19).
In the year covered, SRT hosts earned $82 million, on which the state via its 1.8% transient lodging tax
(TLT) earned $1.5 million. Aligning with other studies, they find STRs are likely reducing the supply of
long-term housing as STR growth increases faster than construction. The financial incentive favoring
them is greater in resort communities.
There is both a short version (p. 8-10) and a long version (p. 28-43) of the author’s conclusions and
recommendations. A couple of minimums are that STRs should have a licensing requirement, and that
they should pay fees and taxes. She points out the state’s imposition of the transient lodging tax (TLT)
and that cities can impose it also. But many cities do not, and some that do haven’t told Airbnb and
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
other platforms about it (p.22). Input should be gathered regarding regulations and—as implied in cases
above—they should be clear and enforceable.
The author found (p.16) that outside of the Central Oregon and North Coast regions, Airbnb accounts for
only 1% of the housing stock. However, plausible speculation would find Eugene to be an area of
potential growth since the city is only an hour’s drive from the coast, and hiking and backpacking is not
unknown in the Eugene area itself. Not to mention a couple of athletic events on the horizon. Perhaps
surprisingly, STRs are more common in lower-income neighborhoods. In most cases the STR is an entire
home, and only 13% are apartments (p.18).
The author favors a general principle of shared regulation (p.28-29) for Oregon communities, and this
seems to dovetail with that approach most successful in other cities. It spreads responsibility among
community members, business people, policy makers and others, striving for a midway point between
self-regulation and centralized regulation, not requiring either regulators or regulated to be angels.
It is necessary to have clear definitions of STRs and the different types, with specific numbers such as
days rented per calendar year (p.29-30). This not only makes the law exact but specifies when taxes can
be collected. Aligning with many other sources, the author indicates an outright ban is unlikely to work,
while incentives to moderate them can be suitable to all parties. Enforcement (p.35-36) must strike a
balance between hands-on and hands-off. Again echoing the experience of other cities around the
nation, she notes that fines and other recriminative measures against violators are generally not too
effective.
Even though she calls it “A typology for smaller jurisdictions,” the author’s table on p. 40-43 seems
helpful for those crafting regulations in a community of any size. Options are listed in summary form
allowing simultaneous comparison by a group, and each given a grade.
Bend and Hood River are examples of communities that have developed clearly written policies and
guidelines. Available at the city of Bend’s website is input gathered from citizens and interested parties
showing a (not necessarily representative) sample of concerns collected by a task force that made
recommendations to the City Council.
Policies can be changeable: In 2016 Hood River modified its policy with an ordinance to limit STR listings
to permanent residents of the city, as it had been found that at least a majority of the listings had been
from owners who did not live in the city. The ordinance only applies to residential zones and has a
seven-year (!) grandfather clause. Comically, two council members were renting out their own homes
and one resigned his position. The impetus for the ordinance was a lack of affordable permanent
housing, specifically for employees of local businesses. Hood River’s public hearings on the issue
highlight a variety of voices, not all of whom agree that vacation rentals and the housing shortage are
related. A commentary in Hood River’s local newspaper last year says the housing affordability problem
has worsened, connecting it partly to SRTs continuing to increase as rules have again proven inadequate.
The problem of rentals by “absentee” homeowners is a recurrent theme. The greater tendency for
owners distant from the dwelling to rent it out may be magnified in the case of resort communities.
News articles show a clash between purported economic benefits and quality of life for residents, from
gradual changes in neighborhood character to noise, garbage and congestion issues. Coastal
communities have had to visit and revisit the concerns legislatively. Both Seaside and Cannon Beach
have taken legislative steps to limit STRs, Seaside by designating sections of town not allowing them,
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
Cannon Beach by a numerical limit on the number of permits. Manzanita’s hybrid approach is to limit
the density of STRs in certain areas.
The surest statement that can be made about the STR landscape is that any response to it should be
considered a work in progress.
Assessing and responding to short-term rentals in Oregon: Enabling the benefits of the sharing
economy. Sadie Dinatale. University of Oregon Dept. of Planning, Public Policy, and Management. 2017.
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22520/DiNatale_final_project_2017.p
df?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
Short term rentals establishment process guide. (City of Bend) Planning Division.
https://www.bendoregon.gov/home/showdocument?id=42405
Short Term Rental Program. City of Bend Community Development.
https://www.bendoregon.gov/government/departments/community-development/licenses-and-
permits/short-term-rental-program
Short-term rentals in Hood River County. Hood River County Community Development. Feb. 22, 2017.
http://hrccd.co.hood-river.or.us/images/uploads/documents/2_STR_Handout_2.22.17.pdf
Hood River votes to limit short-term rental listings to permanent residents. KATU.com staff. Sept. 13,
2016.
https://katu.com/news/local/hood-river-votes-to-limit-short-term-rental-listings-to-permanent-
residents
City of Hood River City Council work session. August 10, 2015.
http://ci.hood-river.or.us/pageview.aspx?id=42284
Another voice: Short-term rentals: The ‘get-away boom’ saps livability. John Mills. Hood River News.
June 20, 2018.
https://www.hoodrivernews.com/opinion/guest-commentary/another-voice-short-term-rentals-the-
get-away-boom-saps/article_da735097-8646-5988-b6e7-0d5eae377172.html
Vacation rental debate takes root on Oregon coast. Lori Tobias. The Oregonian/OregonLive. Sept. 29,
2008.
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2019R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/160063
Finding a balance. Patrick Alexander, Erin J. Bernard, Erin Dietrich, Jeremy C. Ruark. The News Guard.
Aug. 16, 2011.
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
https://www.bendoregon.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=18968
September 23, 2019, Work Session – Item 3