Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess and Mayor Murray have proposed a new law that would fundamentally change the way Airbnb operates in Seattle, rolling back the conversions of long-term units to Airbnb short-term rentals, and perhaps driving a cold stake through the heart of the Seattle Airbnb market.
I’ve been in this game for a while now: back in 2012, we decided to take the mother-in-law apartment we had built out in our Wallingford basement and convert it from a $900 / month studio apartment to an Airbnb short-term rental. When we started, we were unsure what to charge, and Airbnb wasn’t much help, but some with some poking around, we landed on $120 / night.
That first year, we went from collecting about $10,000 / year in rent to collecting over $22,000 in Airbnb rental income. Over the summer (the high season), the apartment was rented virtually every day, with most people staying 3 – 5 nights, checking out in the morning and then a new tenant checking in that same afternoon.
I think our proximity to the UW helped: we would often get visiting professors, families visiting their students, but equally often get tourists and miscellaneous travelers. For a family traveling and trying to minimize their expense, a $120 / night apartment with a kitchen meant they could save money on lodging and meals.
Once we discovered BeyondPricing.com, a service that connects to Airbnb and helps adjust your pricing based on local demand (taking into account things like concerts, sports events, holidays and other influences on demand), it got even better for us.
Equally important to us as the income bump was the flexibility: when family and friends came to visit, we could offer them the apartment to stay in, something we couldn’t do when we had long-term renters we couldn’t kick out.
It also gave us the flexibility to be generous with our space: we’ve offered the unit for free to short term travelers (a woman and her kids who needed a place while they left a bad home situation, a family worldschooling their three kids for three years and, as I write this, a refugee couple from Afghanistan. Again, we wouldn’t be able to open our home in this way if we had a long-term renter.
And then, when we travel, we put our own living area on Airbnb. We spent three months in Europe last Spring, and housing was basically a wash: it turns out that you can collect the same or more for a three bedroom house in Seattle as you can rent an apartment in Lisbon or Amsterdam. This summer, we’re taking a 12 day van trip plus three weeks in Amsterdam, and our house is on Airbnb for both of those stays.
Looking around, I can see we’re not alone: there are 50 units in Wallingford and over 11o in the University District, but there’s a difference between the two neighborhoods: the units in Wallingford are almost exclusively backyard cottages, basement mother-in-law apartments, and people’s own homes that they rent out when they’re away. In the University District, there are more “professional” apartments (e.g., this one), units in apartment buildings that have been converted to Airbnb by the building owner or a property management company.
And that is what the the city’s new law is nominally targeting: these units used to be a long-term rental, and as they convert, that’s decreased supply for the Seattle rental market. Decreased supply and increased demand means increased prices.
(Full disclosure: I’m on the other side of this equation as well. I’m half-owner in a three unit apartment house in the Central District, and we’ve been slowly converting the units to Airbnb as tenants have chosen to move out, with similar economic windfall.)
As the city sees housing prices skyrocket, affordable housing evaporate and homelessness on the rise, they’re eyeing Airbnb units as a potential cause, and clamping down on them as a potential cure. If they can turn all those Airbnb units into long-term rentals, they think they can mitigate Seattle’s skyrocketing housing costs.
According to the proposal, people renting out their primary residence (e.g., as we do when we travel), may continue to do so more or less unchanged. We’ll have to get a new license (no information on cost yet) and abide some other rules, but otherwise, we can continue as is.
However, for everyone else (i.e., anyone renting a mother-in-law, backyard cottage, dedicated apartment, etc.), they would be restricted to renting no more than 90 days out of the year. While a December 2015 report by Airbnb says that only 22% of “whole home” (i.e., mother-in-law apartments, backyard cottages, dedicated apartments, basically anything that’s not a room in someone’s house) are rented for more than 90 days per year, that certainly hasn’t been our experience: in 2015, our basement apartment was rented for 266 days.
Obviously, this would decimate our supplemental income, since we’d be forced to either leave our units unoccupied for 9 months out of the year or turn them into the less lucractive and less flexible Airbnb units. It would also shut down an attractive option for travelers to Seattle: the families who are looking for a place in a neighborhood near the UW to visit their kids, who want a kitchen so they can prepare their own meals, or who just don’t like the sterile, starched inauthenticity of hotel rooms, would all be out of luck.
Mayor Murray explains that “we must protect our existing rental housing supply at a time when it is becoming harder for residents to find an affordable home in Seattle. This proposal ensures that apartments and houses are not being used exclusively as short-term rentals, while still providing a means for homeowners to earn some extra money by occasionally renting out their property.”
I empathize with the need for more housing options in the city, and I support the city in trying to do something about it, but this measure seems ill-conceived.
First, many of the units that will be restricted to 90 days would just go idle for for 9 months per year or shut down altogether rather than convert to long-term rentals. For example, my friend Nicole says “Airbnb has allowed me to rent my converted garage and has allowed me to survive financially in Seattle as a single-mom and an artist…I have no interest in long-term rentals, and my neighbors would not like that either. Right now it’s an amenity for them.”
For my mother-in-law unit, I’d either have to leave it empty or give up the flexibility to offer the apartment to my friends, relatives and others I choose when they visit (since it would be locked up by a long-term tenant.)
For these cases, the law simply forces visitors into the less desirable, non-locally owned, corporate hotels, and deprives locals of valuable income.
As a traveler, I’d be bummed: I always stay in Airbnb when I travel these days, never hotels. For one, they’re less expensive, but more importantly, they offer more of what I want: I get a kitchen where I can cook myself breakfast, instead of paying $18 for a plate of eggs from the hotel restaurant, and I get to stay in a neighborhood with people, instead of sanitized business office park. For people hoping to visit Seattle and enjoy this same experience, there will be fewer opportunities.
That said, I agree that the mass conversion of long-term units to short-term, tourist-focused rentals hurts the local housing market and makes it more difficult for working folks to live in this city. I’d like to see changes that address this.
I would support the measure if it made better allowances for the small-time operators like Nicole and I. I say knowing that it would hurt my Central District property, which I would have to convert back into long-term units, and forgo income. But I’m willing to take that hit, in the interest of helping Seattle remain vibrant and affordable.
So, extend the “primary residence” rule to include not only the unit that the operator lives in, but any other units on the same property (e.g., mother-in-law apartments, backyard cottages.) These are the most likely to simply go dark, rather than become long-term rentals anyway.
I’d also suggest that rather than flat-out forbidding non-primary residence associated units from renting for more than 90 days out of the year, they just be taxed at a rate that makes it less attractive, which will reduce, but not eliminate, their numbers, and create a new revenue source for the city that can be funneled to other affordable housing initiatives (like subsidies.)
The City Council will first consider the proposal at a meeting of the Affordable Housing, Neighborhoods and Finance Committee at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 2016. A vote on the proposal is tentatively scheduled for July. The city has posted a one page summary, a FAQ, and a detailed policy brief. I expect that Airbnb, VRBO and other interests will be showing up with lawyers, as will the hotels who desperately want this measure.
Update / Correction: It looks like I got a key detail wrong. The city’s one page summary states that I must provide “proof that the unit being rented is your primary residence” to rent for more than 90 days. Because they used this wording instead of “the unit is on the property of your primary residence”, I interpreted it to mean that my mother-in-law and similar backyard cottages would be restricted to 90 days. However, Greg Maass got clarification from the Tim Burgess’s office, where they stated explicitly:
“there would be no limit to the number of nights you could rent out the DADU in the backyard of your primary residence. All that would be required in your case would be an operator’s license if you rented it out for more than 90 nights a year cumulatively.”
In this light, I support the measure as written. I’m not happy to lose the additional income from my Central District units, but “social justice me” trumps “free-market, libertarian me”. Why don’t I unilaterally convert the units back? Because the actions of one landlord won’t have an impact on Seattle housing prices, whereas the impact of all the units being pushed back into the system might.
Also, there is an upside for me: my mother-in-law unit has been seeing downward price pressure and increasing vacancy because of the explosion of competing units. If those professional units disappear, my occupancy rates are likely to go up.
From a real-market, utilitarian perspective – who’s enforcing this stuff? Is there going to be a city department whose job includes monitoring online short term rental ads and cross referencing with their licensing? Will they rely on neighbors to turn you in?
“… in the interest of helping Seattle remain vibrant and affordable” — I can’t speak to the “vibrant” question, but how would you feel about the whole thing if we could present a case that we can’t solve the affordability problem from the “supply” side alone, and since we’re constitutionally incapable of even thinking about addressing the demand side, the sacrifice your family is making here will make no difference to anyone?
Burgess says that they would have to spin up a new city department to police and enforce the law (but said he doesn’t know how much it would cost), and part of the law requires Airbnb to turn over the relevant data to the city so they can do so.
As long as AirBnb turns over their numbers, it will be very easy for the city to monitor who has hit the 90 day cap on rentals. But this would just force people to be creative and use other services besides AirBnb to rent their units. Regardless, the city will waste a ton of money forcing people to go underground to leverage their investments in their properties.
Yes, VRBO has been around for a long time and has a lot of properties – seems to me much more than AirBNB in some markets, don’t know about Seattle but that could change. VRBO owners often go through craigslist.org too, and I’m sure there are other venues. AirBNB itself may take a hit, but the landlords aren’t tied to AirBNB.
HI,
There is a department now on rental and it’s $175 a year to register a single (bad for townhouse owner), $177 for 2 units, $179 for three etc. Kind of uncool that they punish singles so dramatically. All units have to be registersed. seattle.gov/RRIO
Not if it’s a short term rental. RRIO currently does not apply to units that are rented up to 3 months out of the year per individual.
I agree. I can’t see how the city would actually enforce this. This ny times article is the situation that scares me: party houses. I think I’m okay with short term rentals but the idea of having my family next to a party house is frightening.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/your-money/new-worry-for-home-buyers-a-party-house-next-door.html?_r=0
And any positive argument you made really fell on deaf ears after I read “from a free-market libertarian perspective.” The libertarian argument means that even if most people do the right thing — say bring their well behaved dog to the park and take it off leash — that person will be overshadowed by the few jerks who bring 5 badly behaved dogs and ruin the park experience for everyone else.
I would guess they would say, let the real offense (e.g. obnoxious party behavior) be forbidden, rather than try to govern all activities that might lead to parties. It would be great, if it worked (and it certainly does not work.)
What if your AirBNB license were subject to neighborhood approval, for the duration? Verified complaints from two neighbors would be enough to put you out of business. If you turn out to be not licensed, big fine.
I thought of a snarky reply but I’ll tone it down. I really don’t see SPD finding noise complaints a priority in this situation, and I also don’t see how noise and parties would be enforced by a task force. It certainly isn’t enforced in Austin. Seattle is not Austin so this is more of a unfounded fear of mine.
SPD, what a joke. This city is lawless. You can do whatever you want. Kinda like the wild west. The police are never around and never come when you call them. Part of the typical IMPOTENT Seattle government. Despicable. It does not make me feel better that Austin is the same way. Indeed it makes me wonder about studying whether cities such as Seattle, San Fran, Austin all have impotent police depts and why?
Ooops. That “free-market libertarian” paragraph was left over from an old draft of the article, where I was contrasting “free-market, libertarian me” against “social justice me”. I’m going to edit that out now.
Maybe you could leave it in but just indicate it isn’t your opinion.
I buy all my librarians on the free market. They’re cheaper there…
Couldn’t you just check them out at the library?
Regarding the “party house” problem: I’ve never heard of this being an issue with Airbnb. If you look at the available listings in Seattle, I’d challenge you to find a party house.
Airbnb is actually a great solution for the opposite problem: what happens when you sign a long-term lease with college students who turn your property in to a party house? It’s super hard to get rid of them (laws favor the tenant in these situations.) With an Airbnb, if you get a bad apple renter, they’re out in a few days anyway.
I’ve seen party houses and drug houses in Wallingford, and seen the neighbors struggle and fail to get rid of them. I’ve never heard of an Airbnb party house until this article, and certainly not in Wallingford.
You are right. There are a few in my neighborhood although not right next to me. I haven’t heard of a problem with parties.
i have a friend in Portland who just broke her lease because the apartment below her was rented on AirBnB and the tenants were frequently noisy and raucous late into the night.
i also have experience with the house next to me being rented to frat boys who partied almost every night for years, often spilling over to my driveway. it’s even harder to get rid of them when you’re dealing with an absentee landlord who doesn’t care as long as he gets his rent money.
Please do not generalize to all landlords. I have rentals in Seattle and up north. Fortunately, this never happened in Seattle, but up north I rented to two guys whose previous landlords obviously lied to me about them. These dudes threw wild parties. Fortunately the place was on two acres so the house was not too close to the neighbors. However, this is a duplex and the tenants downstairs suffered until the lease ended. I was not an absentee landlord. It works both ways. Some laws hurt tenants and others hurt landlords. I totally empathize with you. I despise people who disregard other people’s property rights.
respectfully, i was relaying my own personal experience. i never generalized to all landlords in any way.
Agreed on the libertarian perspective: it is what has hindered WA & Seattle politics for too long, creating a massive tragedy of the commons.
However, the questions Jordan raises here are ones that give me pause about this regulation change as well. I like keeping tourist money in local hands rather than in a distant CEO’s pocket. I like giving tourists and medium-term visitors better/cheaper options than corporate hotels. I like helping Seattle residents create multiple income streams to survive the costs of living in an expensive city. And, over time, an ADU created for and paid by AirBnB money can revert to affordable housing after the loan is paid off.
I’d prefer
1. Increase the tax on rentals, with the money going to affordable housing.
2. Allow owners to rent out ADU/DADU units on property they live on.
3. Discourage short-term condo rentals through higher taxation, or a lottery system or something.
Paul, why do you always want to punish people with more taxes? I thought urbanists such as yourself were all about the Econ 101, AKA “supply and demand.” You DO understand that punishing people who invest in creating rental property with even higher taxes will result in LESS rentals being on the market, right?
After all, you make the same argument against those who have the audacity to argue that developers should actually provide on site parking for their buildings, because that would drive up construction costs and therefore make for less affordable housing.
Sorry, Paul, but you can’t have it both ways.
hayduke, i believe PaulC is referring to airbnb rentals, not long-term rentals. like, a hotel tax that applies to short-term rentals but not housing rentals.
“On the other hand, from a free-market, libertarian perspective, it seems like if someone owns something, and they want to rent it to someone else, they should be allowed to. Why should the city get to tell them who they can rent to and for how long?” I completely agree with this statement. We now have not one, but TWO legal entities making rules for the rental market (i.e. “landlords”) to follow that we are paying more for (yes, I have to pass on the RRIO costs to my tenants) and now they want to likely create a THIRD to deal solely with Airbnb that will create yet another cost. I have issues with slumlord properties and have always thought the city monitored them to the benefit of tenants being taken advantage of. But what they’re proposing with regards to Airbnb goes too far. Full disclosure on my side: I own a triplex in Wallingford and as taxes and expenses have risen, I considered using the studio as an Airbnb unit to protect my other tenants from rent raises. Traveling so much for work put the kibosh on that, but as I’ve just put the property up for sale, I’ve had two inquiries from prospective buyers about the Airbnb sitch in the ‘hood as they also were considering using the studio in that way. The first eight years I owned the property, the rents stayed the same. It would be nice to have continued that trend and Airbnb might be the answer to provide affordable rents for two units and affordable accommodations for travelers.
My understanding isn’t that you have to shut it down for 9 months, just that you have to treat it as a real business, be licensed, have insurance, and pay taxes. I think that’s fair, and that doesn’t shut down airbnb.
Nope, that’s not right. I link the to law. It’s very specific: 90 cumulative days maximum per year. Presently, I’m at 266, so that means a huge loss.
See my response below- it depends on how you define “primary residence” Currently, any rental that is on the property you live on will be considered part of your primary residence and not subject to the 90 day restriction.
There’s some ambiguity here….
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Council/Issues/RegulatingShortTermRentals/Regulating-Short-Term-Rentals—Policy-Brief.pdf
“For the remaining 20%, if you rent out portions of your primary residence – or an in-law unit or backyard cottage associated with your primary residence – for more than 90 nights a year, you will be required to register with the City and get a new Short Term Rental Operator license.”
But then also…
“Provide proof that the dwelling unit offered for short term rental is their primary residence if rented > 90 nights”
And ADU/DADU isn’t one’s “primary residence” dwelling unit, but maybe they just mean any unit on the property where the owner lives?
I did not know this. I thought this was only for people who are using large apartment complexes or condos as b an b’s. If it includes a unit in one’s house, this is ridiculous and is why many liberals in Seattle, such as I, believe the city has gone too far to the left. What ever happened to property rights in one’s home. How is this creating a personal hazard to our citizens if a persons rents out his/her basement and the place is safe and clean??????
This would never make it through the Supreme Court.
It takes so much money and energy to set up and keep a short term rental. For us, it’s our basement apartment and it helps us cover mortgage and it contributes towards our son’s daycare expenses. We’re not getting rich. We’re proud of what we have and it’s the first time ever I’ve had my own business. No one will want to furnish and maintain a unit for 3 months out of the year and then pack it all up to rent the unit for the other 9 months. This will officially kill the Airbnb business in Seattle for anyone not renting just rooms in their own home.
Jordan, I am about to be in the exact same situation as you- over the past year we tore down our garage and built a backyard cottage. We have spared no expense, creating a very appealing space. We are going to start listing in a couple of weeks, and have been counting on recouping some of the expense via Air Bnb, while letting friends, neighbors, and those in need stay there as well. I wrote to Tim Burgess, and the response I got is encouraging. If you have a backyard cottage, it is considered part of your primary residence, and you would not be subject to the 90 day rule. However, I was told that other city council members might want to push for something more restrictive, so this issue is far from resolved.
“Dear Mr. Maass,
Thank you for your email to Councilmember Burgess. If I’m understanding your email correctly, you built a backyard cottage on the property of your primary residence.
Under the proposal that Tim and Mayor Murray are putting forward for short term rental regulations, there would be no limit to the number of nights you could rent out the DADU in the backyard of your primary residence. All that would be required in your case would be an operator’s license if you rented it out for more than 90 nights a year cumulatively.
If you have interest, more details are available here:http://www.seattle.gov/council/issues/regulating-short-term-rentals.”
Interesting. This is contrary to the wording in their summary, which says that to get a short-term operator’s license, I would need to provide “proof that the unit being rented is your primary residence.” Not “on the same property as my primary residence” or “part of my primary residence”, but “the unit…is my primary residence”.
Good to hear, though. I’ll follow up and post a correction if appropriate.
Burgess’ op-ed echoes his email to Greg and also indicates ADUs/backyard cottages would be considered exempt from 90-day rule: “The regulations do not limit the use of a short term rental that is a
part of one’s primary residence, including a mother-in-law apartment or a
backyard cottage; we know many Seattle residents use income from these
rentals to afford their home or provide for their family and we want to
ensure that benefit remains available.” https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/06/06/op-ed-why-i-am-proposing-short-term-rental-regulation/
I agree that the wording should have been clearer in the draft proposal. Thanks for sharing your experience renting through AirBnB. Great piece.
That sounds reasonable.
Thanks again, Greg. I’ve added a correction to the article. I’m still waiting for a reply from Tim’s office directly, but his answer to you is pretty black and white.
You make the city’s argument yourself: you and your partners are taking full time rentals off the market and making them AirBnBs. Where is this not greed?
I take umbrage with your implication that what I’m doing is “greedy”. I said I support the law that limits what I and others are doing. Calling me greedy is unnecessary and inaccurate. Is someone going to work to earn a living “greedy”? What if that work contributes to some societal harm as well as creating some good.
Long term housing is a paramount social good, thanks to our self-induced permanent crisis situation, so the finger of moral rectitude will always be pointed at you. Your neighbors who didn’t have any mother-in-law in the first place are only passively culpable. What you need, in the current environment, is the social justice angle. Your actions need to be promoting equitable outcomes for people who are marginalized, etc. – that kind of stuff can really save your bacon, ask the mayor.
You sound like someone who majored in social work and has no money. Middle class people are already getting screwed by social justice. We all should pay for social justice. Your comments are misdirected and not logical. If you want justice, you need to go after the very rich, not the middle class.
There’s an element of irony that I think you missed, in your passion for stereotyping everyone. You have a lot of interesting perspective to add to the discussion, because of your experience, but you should stick more to what you know and speculate less about other people’s motivations.
No, I disagree. I believe you stereotyped Jordan and now you are saying that I stereotyped you. This is what you said “Long term housing is a paramount social good, thanks to our self-induced permanent crisis situation, so the finger of moral rectitude will always be pointed at you.” Nice beginning, but not a nice end.
You said the above and others have called him “greedy”. Sounds like lots of stereotyping to me….. Many people on here do not own homes and are bitter about what is happening in Seattle. You may not be one of them. My work involves interacting with large numbers of people who have degrees in social sciences, humanities and professions, such as social work, that do not pay well. These educated people see what is happening around them and are bitter. Unlike people with low educations and lower incomes, the latter know how to find venues to express their pain. I have met at least twenty people who are not only upset, but snarky about not being able to buy a house. I have given detailed advice elsewhere on this venue regarding how to save for a house. I thought I was doing a good thing and the person chose one thing out of 10 and misconstrued it.
There are many people in this city who own homes and want to make extra money AND they also do much for the common good. These are not antithetical. So you want them to rent out part of their house to low income people for the “social good”. These same people are paying huge amounts of property taxes and expect the city and state to use them properly to help people in need. Middle class persons do not have to be the saviors of the world.
I know, I know. Don’t feed them… But for what it’s worth, I got the joke and thought it was funny.
I think that description is coming more from your Central District property than the separate residence in your backyard. Converting your backyard cottage to an AirBnB has, as you described, additional benefits besides money, and it’s where you live.
Converting your CD rental house to AirBnB, on the other hand, means that you were affluent enough to purchase a second property in the first place (i.e. it’s not case of the single mother trying to get by). But also, the only benefit to you for that property is additional money. When I read that, my first thought was also “wow, that’s pretty greedy”.
You’ve got to be kidding! Jordan and his partners have made the investment in the CD in order to create an income-earning situation that is providing an affordable accommodation for many coming to our city and bringing their tourist dollars with them. You, and many others in this city, seem to think anyone who attempts to invest in Seattle in a way that hopefully creates a positive financial situation for themselves is evil and greedy. I would posit there are better targets for you to attack. Also, it sounds like he is providing free housing for refugees when the situation arises which makes him a much better person than I. And if they hadn’t purchased that multi-unit in the CD, do you think another buyer would have rented the units out as “affordable housing”?
Lisa, the people who are lecturing you are all jealous. They do not have money and are bitter. I have been very poor and worked hard to make money. I provide beautiful places for people to live and yes, I make money. You can tell from their comments that they are educated, but have no investments. Read my post about people with higher educations and lower incomes. Many of these people are in professions that are very noble — teaching, social work, and are not bitter, but many are.
So because you happen to believe Jordan is “affluent enough to purchase a second property,” he owes it to others who aren’t affluent to earn less money on his investment? Like they’re entitled to that? It’s not enough for you that he pays ever growing property taxes on that investment; you believe the city should force him to rent it rather than do as he sees fit with it?
Where do you guys come up with this nonsense?
People who do this are obviously working hard to increase the utilization of the land to create value. You know who do that same thing at a much bigger scale at even higher efficiency? Developers! What I don’t get is why people favor mom-and-pop approaches for these things. It’s one thing to allow mom-and-pop to compete with bigger companies, but it’s quite another trying to stop all bigger companies just to foster the less efficient mom-and-pop operations. Mom-and-pop operations are really the best when they only serve the niche market.
Do not listen to these people. They never took RISKS. Apparently they never learned about RISK-REWARD in sixth grade. They lash out because they are jealous. I can assure you that if someone offered them a rental house for free (unlike us who sacrificed and took risks to get them), they would jump at the chance. I know this because I work with so many people who are highly educated, but have no money. I have tried to help them, but they would rather spend $4 for a cup of coffee. Others drive a bmws or go to Nordstroms to shop instead of saving for a house. Others do not do these things, but go out to eat three nights a week. The easiest thing to do is to vent on line. In my work I have tried to help poor people because they are my heritage. They are very different than the bitter people on here with degrees and no money.
Jordan, I agree that the use of the word greed was unnecessary.
However, while reading your piece, I also had a different response to your MIL unit and your CD apartment. Taking rental units off market, particularly the rapidly-gentrifying CD market, leaves me with mixed feelings.
Can you tell us whether the AirBNB rentals at the CD location are also families visiting their relatives in the CD, like your MIL space? Do your renters tend to reflect the population of the neighborhood? Only if you care to share.
There are many articles discussing the exclusion experienced by African-Americans trying to use AirBnB. A simple google search will bring up a variety of sources.
I know some on this blog will criticize me for bring race into the discussion, but it is relevant and it is important, so here I am, bringing it up.
People don’t mind the topic of race so much. What they mind is being called BIGOTED and calling wallyhood full of RACIST BIGOTRY. That doesn’t sit so well.
I beg to differ. I’ve seen and received plenty of outrage on the site just for introducing race into a conversation.
And really, people needn’t get so defensive when racism and bigotry are called out.
Some people will introduce racism if the topic is a new cupcake for sale at 7-11. It’s a need of some sort.
I would not object to the city making me convert my CD units back to long-term. I agree that it’s in the city’s best interest. I’m not going to do it unless the city passes this law, but I’m also not going to argue against the law.
Where does “greed” enter into this? These guys aren’t a non-profit providing free housing, right? So what is wrong with utilizing your own property in whatever law-abiding way you want to?
Greed is in the eye of the beholder.
If your parents never went to school and you grew up poor, but managed to become a doctor and buy real estate, you certainly do not think of yourself as greedy. I think of myself as very fortunate to have been born in the USA and I worked by butt off to succeed.
I have had 102 tenants and have only gone to court three times. I have never abused tenants and I am not greedy. People who rent out their basements are not greedy, they are smart and deserve to do it. They are on site!!!!!!! When I go to Paris or Milan, I love to stay in a private apartment or in someone’s home, not to save money, but because I want to experience the culture.
The people I rented to were greedy, not I. They wanted something for nothing. It seems that Seattle has many philosopher kings who are frustrated because they have advanced degrees and are getting priced out. They are bitter and call others greedy. I went through hell to get what I got and I changed my major. I love history, but my father with zero years of education told me that i would starve. Seems like Seattle has many English majors who can not make it financially and think they should because they have an education. Perhaps they should have changed their majors as did I.
Very roughly, there are four types of people. Those who have higher eds and higher incomes, those who have higher incomes and lower eds, those who have lower incomes and higher eds, and those who are low on both. I have seen all kinds and the third group are very bitter and love to complain about the costs of things. You made your choice to major in something that is, unfortunately, of limited financial value, in American culture. Do not be bitter, it compromises physiology.
Jordan, as Greg Mass points out, you are misreading the proposal. The means test is “Short term rental operator resides on-site,” not in the unit. On site is your single family parcel. Your other (triplex) situation would obviously be affected, but not your basement apartment. In fact, your basement apartment (or anyone’s legal accessory dwelling unit will go _up_ in value if this proposal comes to fruition, because the supply of short term rental inventory will be curtailed.
Jordan had the same initial reaction I had, and any media reporting around this proposal has been incomplete and misleading. But I’d encourage anyone who has a stake in this issue to follow it closely, as it is just a proposal right now and anything could happen.
The scenario Jordan laid out above really doesn’t make any sense when you think about it you can’t both reside “on site” and be renting your residence at the same time.
Jordan, I’m not trying to be combative, I understand the wording from the city is confusing, The sentence “proof that the unit being rented is your primary residence” should have said something to effect of: “proof that the unit being rented is _part of_ your primary residence, _whether attached or detached_.”
Greg, sorry I misspelled your name above.
Based upon your own personal experience, it certainly sounds like the city has plausibly identified one source of rentals disappearing.
I wonder if these short-term Airbnb rentals, due to their cheaper price tag, are causing additional people to visit the area? If so, then your tax idea makes sense, which can be used as a subsidy or other incentive to get a developer to make something that falls in line with urban planning experts’ best guesses on how to make Seattle living more affordable. Perhaps it can be used to fund more mass transit projects to make living far from the city less significant. However, if these renters are the same in number but merely using Airbnb instead of hotels, maybe it is the hotels that should be dropped in number and/or converted to rental units instead.
I’m actually in favor of Airbnb, because it allows our midwest relatives to visit us on the cheap, but I think your article makes it clear that it does have some impact (magnitude unknown) to the rental market.
The problem is still the lack of housing supply. Seattle has enough house for neither residents nor guests. Regulations like this is just tilting the balance a bit, without solving either.
If people reject high density buildings, an alternative would have some kind of “house-pool” rule. Have people pay property taxes based on the number of area per residence on top of property value. That way you can get higher occupancy rate, not just by family, but by person.
re: AirBnB Rape – it is a blessing in disguise for females who want to open their property to renters. AirBnb sent me rapists and thieves. They have a point system in that every time someone refuses their “referrals” they lose points thus putting them lower in the supply chain. AirbnbRape sent me MEN with NO pictures, NO last name, no address, no job. Rapists. When I said no, they dumped me.
They are a Human Trafficing Site. Period. Period. Men book a room and then show up with “their wives” of “girlfriends” so that is two for the price of one. Airbnrape had no provision for correcting this kind of rip off.
Well, just as most systems that relies on self-governance instead of government regulation, it favors certain groups. AirBnB has a racist issue also.
I can’t blame anyone who is a homeowner for trying to maximize their financial situation. The cost of living in Seattle has skyrocketed and I know that affects homeowners too.
That said, as much as it might suck for you homeowners in the ‘hood these days, what with property taxes and street parking issues and all, it’s just short of devastating for a lot of renters around here. Not only have I abandoned all hope of ever owning a home in my city, when my rent got jacked up again last year it took me 3 months to find and secure an affordable apartment. (And that was after downsizing to almost half the space, giving up access to laundry and reliable heat, and getting rid of more than half my stuff.) It’s not just that rents everywhere have risen dramatically – it’s also that for those of us who need to rent in the under-$1200 bracket, and especially the under-$1000 bracket, there are so few places available anymore. Competition is fierce, even for fortunate people like me with good references, just enough savings to put down a deposit on the spot, no pets, no kids, single, employed, no red flags. I was showing up to viewings and finding a dozen other people scrambling to be the first to get in an application. I was responding to ads on Craigslist which had been posted for less than 3 hours and were already rented. I showed up to one affordable no-frills apartment which was literally going to be torn down in 8 months, where I was half an hour early to the open house and was already 3rd in line, and the property manager actually asked us to have a sob-story competition on the spot to prove to her who needed the place the most. The housing situation in Seattle for anyone at a lower income level is frustrating, dehumanizing, and sometimes terrifying. This is not an exaggeration. When people call this a “housing crisis,” they aren’t using hyperbole. I don’t know how many homeowners are aware of what it’s really like around here right now.
So, while I agree that no one OWES their rental space to anyone, homeowners should be able to do what they wish with their property, and any one individual’s responsibility for this problem is quite limited… I also have limited sympathy for homeowners who complain about their profits going down when they’ve contributed to the shortage of stable housing for their neighbors. I’m generally in favor of more regulation in our market, because asking individuals to solve the problem out of the goodness of their hearts isn’t a practical or realistic strategy in this situation. What I’d really like to see, is for the city to relax regulations in such a way that ENCOURAGES more homeowners to build ADU spaces into their homes in less-dense neighborhoods like Wallingford, and then REWARDS them for making those spaces available as long-term rentals to Seattle residents. Rather than building more apartment/condo towers in places like Wallingford (which, lets face it, no one likes and they aren’t “affordable” anyway) I’d love to see more basement, attic, and backyard MIL spaces open up around here. This kind of housing preserves the character of neighborhoods, keeps the neighborhood more personal because it encourages personal interaction and accountability among neighbors, spreads out the density more evenly. More, please.
The main issue is that this problem is new. Current home owners typically do not want any changes to what they think they bought into, and would not want to help out on issues that happened after they bought the house. That means a lot of people are still thinking about keeping the neighborhood to be like it’s 15 years ago, when the situation has been very different even comparing to 3 years ago.
Your problem will not be resolved. Even if owners start to put in small backyard units, over time it would be obvious to owners that putting in some well-built high price unit would be the best bang for the buck. It’s not like tiny units in San Francisco are cheap, and Wallingford as a desirable location will not be cheap over time.
KD, I have great empathy for your plight.
When I was younger, before I bought my house, I lived in shared housing – a room in a house to rent with other people. That was THE CHEAPEST option. My first place was a $250 room in a house with three other people in Ravenna. I never even bothered to look at apartment buildings – those were for other people. When I did finally move in to an apartment with an S.O., we lived in 1BR basement, MIL, duplex type apartments in older houses. When I think of those places now, I wonder if they are all AirBnB/VRBO rentals now. Even then, in the early oughts, my landlords always told me they were barely covering their costs, not profiting at all from our rent. They were relying on appreciation over time to make the investment worthwhile. Now, they’ve got the appreciation, but they could also be making some serious money! I don’t blame them, but I also wonder what I would do if I was a youngish renter today.
This is confusing. If you read Talton’s article in yesterday’s Seattle ragTimes, you will know that this push may be misunderstood by many people and perhaps by you. I think this will apply to multi-dwellings that would deprive hundreds to thousands of people of housing. There are special rules for hotels. Renting your basement is not the same as turning it into a hotel. Hotels need to be regulated as they are in special zones and they involve thousands of transactions. I really do not believe these new laws will influence you. Using an entire home as a b and b is something I would not support. As someone who rents several one family houses to Seattle citizens, I can tell you that I would not want to do this and would not like it if my neighbors did it, unless they were close by to keep track of what is going on. Your situation is different. You are on site. However, if you leave for six months and do it, I do not think I would support that unless you had good coverage from a neighbor or family member/friend.
OK, here’s what happens. They force us small guys to give up our airbnb units. (I’m a host with over 300 guests to my credit both in units in my backyard that would be inappropriate for long term rentals)That would suck, not just from the loss of income perspective but also because many of us would be forced to sell out to developers who would tear down our houses and build town houses. Not low income townhouses mind you. So, in a foolish and misguided attempt to “just do something”, the mayor and council have only succeeded in making things worse. In my case much worse as I rent my front house out very cheaply to 3 guys, one in the food and beverage industry, one young guy who’s just beginning to make his way in the world, and one broke assed musician who hasn’t been able to afford to pay me the rent in over a year. But, because I have the income from my airbnb spaces, I’m able to afford the luxury of generosity with my guys. Just so you know, at the moment I’m currently getting under $1,000 a month for a 3BR house in Fremont.
So let’s say this genius scheme goes through and I choose not to just ignore it, as I suspect will happen with many, if not most of us hosts. What happens next? Well, first off I’ll have to kick out my tenants or get them to pony up the 3k a month that the rental market says I should be getting for my house. So congratulations Mr Mayor and Councilmember. You’ve just created 3 more homeless people. Nice work. Next I’ll have to do the math and see if I can afford to keep my home. So maybe you’ve also driven me out of the city but hey, I’m a troublemaker who tells you what idiots you are on local blogs so I’m sure you’ll be glad to see the backside of me.
For once I’d love to see the folks in our government actually think before attempting to act. Most of the airbnb hosts out there are small time folks who are trying to live their lives. A very few are doing the business model that you’re worried about, renting out apartments and then putting them up as short term rentals. I can tell you that, if you do the math on this, very few of them will still be in the business in a year. If I had to pay 2k a month for a 1BR apt that I could rent out on airbnb for $149 a night, well, you can see how much of the profit is eaten up in rent alone. 13+ days of rentals just to cover that. and that’s before you factor in the costs of furnishing a place, cleaning it each time, providing some food and consumables like toilet paper and soap. Now if you get lucky and have 90% occupancy under this model, congratulations! You get to live like a really hard working poor person!
So maybe we can just relax and hang back and let some of this sort itself out and not do what we always do which is to screw the very people we purport to be protecting in the name of the greater good…
Of course no one has mentioned that TENANTS RENT OUT THEIR APARTMENTS ON ABB AND MAKE MONEY OFF OF LANDLORDS’ PROPERTIES. My lease specifically states that one can not sublease the property. I had a highly educated older tenant who could not get a job in Seattle (I will not mention her major) and she, behind my back, was renting part of her place on ABB. The company made it very hard for me to take the ad down. I saw the list of visitors who made comments on ABB and what she was charging. I do not have insurance for unrelated-unvetted visitors. She became hostile when I called her on it. I am sure the philosopher kings think it was ok for her to do this.
The “philosopher kings” think this is okay, given that she is breaking a legal agreement. Why haven’t you evicted her for cause? You need to also rattle a saber against Airbnb, they hate bad publicity.
About the party house phenomenon, there certainly should be a stipulation in the ordinance that repeated offenses could result in the city temporarily or in severe cases permanently yanking the ability to put the property in Airbnb. I live next to an Airbnb house and there have been some loud parties but nothing approaching a nuisance so far and occasional parties aren’t unique to short term rentals.
3-4k airbnb’s isn’t what is crippling the housing market. Seattle has a robust economy, weathered the recent recessions better than 90+% of the country thanks in large part to our strong tech sector. People want to live here. Despite our local economic strength .. there wasn’t enough financial backing by the big banks for major construction projects to continue so we are having to play catch up. As for the cost of housing. Yes, it’s steep and unaffordable for many… but again that has to do with how popular of a place it is to live/work… the government needs to stop trying to be social engineers and focus on the more important matters of police protection and infrastructure… like the 100k bridges across the country that are in critical need of replacement… or monitoring seattle city light so the city doesn’t shut down for a few hours again
airbnb/vrbo etc are neighborhood breakers. they turn residential zoning into businesses with transient housing. then, the people using the airbnb expect the neighbors to treat them like neighbors or concierges. I’m sorry, but no. I bought a house in a residential neighborhood. I did not buy a house in an area zoned for hotels. If you’re wanting to run a low cost hotel business, thats fine, but respect the boundaries, and don’t try to use the loop holes.
and yes, airbnb is directly responsible for removing rental inventory and thus driving up cost for rentals. Your interest in making more travel money from turning your home or apartment building into a low grade hotel is causing homelessness, urban sprawl, and transportation congestion. good job!
This article reminds me of the old Phil Ochs song, “Love Me, I’m A Liberal.” I.e., “Ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects me personally.”
I’m not being judgmental here, just observing. 😉
So, is this the law or still being talked about?
I just read this after reading about how Berlin is clamping down on the Airbnb abuses there. Sadly, as long as a law doesn’t prevent it, many people will do things to enrich themselves at the expense of the community at large. Why is it not enough to be able to rent out an apartment to help pay your mortgage to someone who wants to live in Seattle. What about the student who can’t rent an apartment because you took yours off the market? Is it not enough to have a nice home to live in? When did owning a home become a money-making venture? This reminds me of the tax loopholes that many rich people use to avoid paying taxes like “the little people”. It’s perfectly legal, but it’s morally wrong. Is it more important to provide visitors to the city with a place to stay than the working people who live there? With the shortage of affordable housing in Seattle, and the high percentage of renters, it will only be a matter of time before similar legislation passes in Seattle, and the free ride you have been experiencing will come to an end. Save your money while you can.