Council Member Mitch Ofarrell has asked members of the community to weigh in on the proposed ordinance on home sharing, either as hosts or as non-hosts. Please make your voice heard! YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RESIDE IN
If you want an ordinance that addresses abusive landlords that are replacing rental units with short term rentals, and you don’t like “party houses”, THIS IS NOT THAT ORDINANCE.
Key problematic areas of the ordinance include:
- Revenue from occupancy tax can provide important revenue to the city to meet costs of housing, homelessness and other essential services. Limiting home sharing limits the revenue collected
- Existing laws pertaining to Ellis properties, abusive landlords and party houses (in general and specific to short term rentals) may not have been fully enforced or utilized. Concerns regarding parking, noise, and accountability need to be addressed in general, not just as pertaining to home sharing.
- City should focus on protecting tenants from abusive landlords and Ellis evictions in general and in relation to short term rentals.
- The sharing economy provides the city with jobs and stability at no cost to the city.
- Home sharing supports local businesses and brings tourist dollars into communities.
- Neighbors, community businesses, hosts, employees of home sharing, report that home sharing provides significant housing, employment and community stability.
- Many people who participate in home sharing are seniors, retired teachers, people with chronic health conditions who cannot work outside of their homes and for whom having long term tenants presents a hardship and lack of control over one’s home and environment.
- No limit to the number of days of operation in owner-occupied properties any more than for any other home-based business.
- Number of guests should be commensurate with occupancy restrictions for housing in general. There is no reason to have greater restrictions for short term or long term residency.
- Agreements between renters and landlords should not be the enforcement obligation of airbnb, similar platforms, or L.A. city.
- Efforts by residents, either renters or owners to support themselves in their own homes should be encouraged.
- Restrictions on RSO units make it less affordable to both tenants and mom and pop landlords, struggling to meet housing costs.
- Homes where no one was displaced should not be penalized for conversion when that house was the primary residence of the owner prior to home sharing. Many families buy small multi–unit properties for their own use. Home ownership is a form of affordable housing.
- People who work out of their home should be also entitled to home share. Restrictions on non-residential uses should be no different for home sharing than is otherwise allowable. This clause is extremely vague.
- The elimination of Conditional Use Permits for actual Bed and Breakfasts is counterintuitive. If anything, that process should be streamlined and less expensive.
- Creating jobs and small businesses should be encouraged by the city.
- There should be a grandfather clause and consideration of hardship to protect those who have been home sharing in the property of their primary residence.
- Enforcement of the use of private spaces of people’s homes takes away vital resources that would protect tenants from abusive landlords and communities from real nuisances.
- Opens the city up to extensive lawsuits.
- Home sharing provides short term interim housing to people between housing, and those relocating to Los Angeles.
- Home sharing allows people more control over who they live with and for how long.
- The home sharing ordinance is a poor substitute for real and comprehensive housing policy.
- The proposed fines for noncompliance within one’s own home, are extreme and draconian.