According to the American Planning Association, short-term vacation rentals present a major planning challenge for cities across America. Because structurally they are residential units by design, that serve a dual purpose and identity as hotels in their impact on a community. Subsequently, a proliferation of these uses can have a negative impact on the residential neighborhood character, as well as impact those who own property in those neighborhoods. Which especially poses potential harm and danger to normal residential homeowners, due to the transient nature of short-term vacation rental occupants, and their lack of communal nexus to the community.
A case in point, which leads the nation in how it resolved its short-term vacation rental dilemma, is the city of New Orleans. To combat the multiplicity of issues associated with property rights, in respect to both pros and cons of short-term vacation rentals, the city of New Orleans Department of Safety and Permits has been successful in developing and implementing a regulatory regime that has been cited around the world as a model for balancing the inescapability of short-term vacation rentals, with the proper legal protections for neighborhoods and property owned residents.
Just as we are struggling in both Chattanooga and Hamilton County to find compatibility for the two potentially incompatible concepts of homeownership and short-term vacation rentals co-existing within the same communal space, we too must find solutions. It has not been an easy task for New Orleans and neither will it be for the city of Chattanooga or Hamilton County. However, the city of New Orleans was willing and diligent in making the efforts, and in doing what was necessary in the development of a solid and robust package of practical and enforceable regulations that provided the market flexibility required by private industry.
Part of the concessions included a residential on-site ownership requirement, which stipulated that “for those seeking a new short-term rental permit, the operator of a short-term rental in a residential area was required to prove they live onsite. Operators were defined to include either being the owner of the property or a tenant, with both the owner and operator having to be 18 or older and a 'natural person'.” The regulations included another clause which took it a step further, by prohibiting business entities, such as LLC’s from being able to qualify under this regulatory provision.
The requirement that the property owner and operator were required to have residency at the property and be available to resolve potential problems arising from the stay of guests, placed the burden, responsibility and potential liability on the owner. This included being available to deal with noise complaints, as well as issues with trash and any other problems arising out of short-term rental of the premises. Going even further, the legal mandate also sets a time limit of one hour for property owners and or operators to respond and rectify potential violations.
To further insure that both owners and operators would be available onsite at the rental property, the number of Short-Term Vacation Rental permits were limited to one per residence. Additionally, all new STVR permits were deemed as non-commercial, with the new regulation eliminating the residential category altogether.
Also in place were fines and revocation of licenses and permits. One of which was if a short-term rental accumulated up to three “quality of life” violations, such as excessive noise or public drunkenness, the license would be revoked. The requirement went even a step further in revoking the operator’s or owner’s permits. This served to bar both the property owner and operator from re-applying for up to five years, with the property involved in the violation also being banned from operating as a short-term vacation rental for up to five years.
The next provision gave neighbors impacted by short-term vacation rental violations the legal right to file claims against STVR owners who violated the city’s laws.
Perhaps helpful to the city of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, and other cities in dealing with this dilemma, are the New Orleans' solutions to issues regarding short-term vacation rental. Which is to offer the same or similar practical solutions to potential infringement of short-term vacation rentals within residential communities, in both Chattanooga and Hamilton County.
Or even a better solution for the city and county’s disgruntlement and potential harmful threat to residential harmony and safety, is to require that short-term vacation rentals be restricted to non-residential communities – deeming them the same as any other commercial entity would be required to abide by specific local and county zoning laws. Because if truth be told, and as we have seen in those cities such as New Orleans, short-term vacation rentals still remain very much a planning challenge. Because despite their residential design, the modern-day appetite for short-term vacation rentals that are not properly regulated by county and local municipalities can and ultimately do have a negative impact on residential neighborhoods. This changes the family-oriented and peaceful abode to the uncontrolled behavior of transient short-term vacation rentals, as well as poses potential endangerment to residents and leads to significant decreases in available homes within the housing market. None of which are good for permanent residents of Chattanooga or Hamilton.
Zoning is the practice and power of local government to regulate private land use and development by local government. Keeping in mind that these are not federal zoning laws, locally this would include both the city of Chattanooga, as well as Hamilton County. But regardless of the local governing body, be it the city or the county, land use zoning is divided into five categories: 1) Residential 2) Commercial 3) Agricultural 4) Industrial and 5) Special Use Properties, and is essential as a part of the master plan in the long-term physical development of land usages.
The proper functionality of zoning is important in preventing conflict or harm between two or more adjacent areas of land usage. For example, the “separational barrier” may be a playground, a park or even a highway. Or there may be “down zoning”, which is a change in the present zoning to permit fewer intensive developments that are currently permitted. This happens often in examples where there is a need for additional housing. Therefore, a commercial area is rezoned as residential.
While “buffer zones” may be conducive in other usages, when used for separation of residential properties, it is normally not considered. This is because buffer zones mainly consist of walls, fences or landscaping with berms that serve as obstructions from the street view or adjoining properties.
Regardless of the solution chosen, the conflicting territorial debate over short-term vacation rentals must be given priority by local and county municipalities. Especially when there are both local and county municipality disgruntlements from residents. However, that balance must also take into consideration the need to lend an ear to homeowners who desire the right to use their properties as short-term vacation rentals. This is what makes the New Orleans' approach more appealing. Because seemingly within its concept of the property ownership-occupancy requirement, everyone will leave the war room with a victory.
Nevertheless, with the present Chattanooga short-term vacation rentals litigation now stirring the already heated-up pot, whether the determination is in the hands of property owners, local or county government or the courts, this matter is yet to be decided in Tennessee.
Dr. Jean Howard-Hill
* * *
I'm not sure if Dr. Hill or your editorial team is following what's actually happening in New Orleans but the city has been under a temporary restraining order from a federal judge since the first week of September and cannot enforce any of the updated, court mandated STR rules and regulations passed be the city council in March of this year. These are some of the ones the author cites in the opinion piece as if they were actually implemented and working successfully.
The city council is currently considering an all out ban because they cannot seem to satisfy last year's court ruling, even after using suggestions from the judge when changing the rules. Also, because the platforms (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.) will not self regulate.
There is so much more to this story, like lack of enforcement when there were active regulations in place for example. Dr. Hill is naive about the realities of this challenging situation and the constitutionality of owner occupant requirements.
Lynanne Ciurus
New Orleans, La.