West Seattleites planning to comment at City Council short-term rentals hearing tomorrow

CeeBee June 14, 2016 (4:08 pm)

Then why doesn’t she register it as a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and rent it out and then it should play for itself?

Maria June 14, 2016 (4:45 pm)

CeeBee,

it’s a tiny house on wheels, that’s why it’s an unconventional dwelling.

Diane June 14, 2016 (4:22 pm)

re RP comment on previous story; “impossible, to rent the
home to a “long term” renter for the remaining “9 months”… and who rents for 9
months? Burgess has 90 days in order to
discourage any one from owning a vacation rental.”

~

actually, where I am from, Newport Beach in southern CA,
nearly all beach rentals are only available to locals 9 months out of the year;
it has been that way for decades; at least 50 years; monthly rents for locals,
which includes tons of students from UC Irvine, my alma mater; turns into
weekly rent for tourists during the summer; I grew up in San Bernardino, and
our family, all families, would rent a beach house in Newport for a week during
the summer for vacation; and the rest of the year, these homes were available
for locals, and students

Scupper June 14, 2016 (6:03 pm)

@Diane, Students could afford renting out entire vacation homes on Newport Beach? West Seattle beach homes rent for a minimum of $3,500. Sounds like rent control will be the council’s next step…

Maria June 14, 2016 (4:32 pm)

The mayor’s explanation that new regulations will ease the housing crisis, sounds plausible until you see and hear what they are telling people who rent out tiny houses, motor homes, yurts, tents, etc…

They say they can’t rent out these shelters because they don’t meet building codes. People have been living on/in temporary shelters for centuries, and suddenly it’s a problem? What about boats? Are they cracking down on boat rentals now that 3 new businesses for boat sharing have moved to Seattle? Or do they leave that high-end market alone? What about the tiny houses they’ve built for homeless people in the Rainier valley? Why are these exempt?

It’s hypocritical to first say they want to make housing available and affordable in Seattle but then their actions do the opposite, when they deprives people a way to make a living in the city of Seattle using the property they live on.

Hannah is proposing a process to legalize the tiny homes and other eccentric accommodations so that we attract more tourism and also keep people in their Seattle homes. I hope we bring more like-minded West Seattle-lites to the meeting tomorrow. At the very least I want to hear the TRUTH about who benefits when they limit these accommodations: big chain hotels.

Maria June 14, 2016 (4:36 pm)

The mayor’s explanation that new regulations will ease the housing crisis, sounds plausible until you see and hear what they are telling people who rent out tiny houses, motor homes, yurts, tents, etc…

They say they can’t rent out these shelters because they don’t meet building codes. People have been living on/in temporary shelters for centuries, and suddenly it’s a problem? What about boats? Are they cracking down on boat rentals now that 3 new businesses for boat sharing have moved to Seattle? Or do they leave that high-end market alone? What about the tiny houses they’ve built for homeless people in the Rainier valley? Why are these exempt?

It’s hypocritical to first say they want to make housing available and affordable in Seattle but then their actions do the opposite, when they deprives people a way to make a living in the city of Seattle using the property they live on.

Hannah is proposing a process to legalize the tiny homes and other eccentric accommodations so that we attract more tourism and also keep people in their Seattle homes. I hope we bring more like-minded West Seattle-lites to the meeting tomorrow. At the very least I want to hear the TRUTH about who benefits when they limit these accommodations: big chain hotels.

Lisa June 14, 2016 (5:24 pm)

I agree with Maria that it’s hypocritical to say things are being done to provide affordable housing and then squeeze the little guy and gal by making it nearly impossible to supplement income or make a living by using some ingenuity. This city needs more creativity and less regulation. We used to be so much more fun…

Bob June 14, 2016 (5:25 pm)

Overstep by city bureaucrats. Quit punishing the avg home owner. Let Amazon fund affordable housing. They r the ones making it unaffordable. Ridiculous. Mayor is terrible

Rhonda Porter June 14, 2016 (5:27 pm)

We’re looking forward to attending tomorrow’s Council Meeting. I really hope that Lisa Herbold and fellow councilmembers are open-minded and will listen to their constituents.

We’re hearing that the homes that make up “vacation rentals” consist of about 2% of the housing stock. That 2% is not going to make much of dent in the “affordable housing” arena – however, it does make it look like Burgess and crew are trying to “something” to help out those who need affordable rents. A lot of the properties that are more “vacation” geared would not be affordable as a 30 day rental (minimum required after a vacation home has been rented for 90 days in a 12 month period). It’s not going to solve the problem of really needing affordable housing – it just sounds good and it’s easy to go after 2% of the population IMO.

An overwhelming majority of the people who have stayed at our bungalow are connected to West Seattle. They’re here to visit family and friends. They do not want to travel to down town Seattle to stay in a hotel. When people stay in West Seattle, they spend their tourist dollars at our restaurants and stores. Vacation rentals are GOOD for our neighborhood economy. Plus, with WS only having one (10 room?) hotel – vacation rentals are needed!

I agree that vacation rentals and short term rentals should be regulated – but not with the 90 day restriction to those of us who own and manage 1-2 units. Many people do not want to stay in a hotel anymore – they like the experience of “living like a local”.

Vacation rentals also provide a more affordable vacation experience for families.

Again, I’m hoping that the Council will be open to hearing us and that Lisa Herbold will really consider her district, that does not have enough hotels to support our growing community. If vacation rentals are restricted to 90 days – I do believe it will impact the West Seattle economy.

S June 14, 2016 (6:37 pm)

So 2% is too small to have an impact on affordable housing, yet big enough to impact the economy? What’s the logic behind that? Honest question, not trolling.
- Rhonda Porter June 15, 2016 (6:53 am)
  
  S – I think it’s a lot easier for the Council to go after 2% of the housing stock to make it appear as though they’re doing something to help affordable housing. When in reality, the City has taken a lot of affordable housing units away in exchange for developers. I think it’s mostly for political appearance.
  
  What would be more helpful, IMO is to force all the new apartments to have more affordable housing units available… but the council would rather go after 2% of homeowners than interfere with developers.
  
  You cannot force home owners to rent long term or for lower prices. And many “vacation homes” typically are not affordable housing.
  
  I do agree that homes need to be up to code and that the owners should not be stacking as many beds as possible into units – there needs to be limits for safety.
  
  Seattle’s prices for homes and rents will continue to go up – regardless of what the council does.
  - AMD June 15, 2016 (7:23 am)
    
    I’ll reiterate that this proposal is aimed at solving an actual problem that is taking full-time rentals and converting them into short-term rentals. City Council is not trying to “take down” homeowners with vacation rentals. This isn’t a personal attack on you.
    
    Rental rates are based on supply and demand. They will not just continue to go up regardless of intermediate action. That’s not how it works.
    
    I’m also still interested in hearing about the alternative you’ve proposed to solve the underlying problem. It’s a bummer that others are getting caught up in legislation aimed at a different group of landlords, but they need an alternative. They’re not going to throw their hands in the air and give up on the issue because of a small percentage of real estate investors will be affected as well.
- SEAVRFacts June 28, 2016 (4:24 pm)
  
  From a data of our guests, and what they spend on Vacation and support local businesses, the supposed 300 units that Tim Burgess thinks this might effect would result in a total Economic Impact of $44.8 Million on an annual basis. So yes, it would be a big effect. People on vacation spend a lot more money on restaurants, and activities on a daily basis than residents. And I don’t know who is saying 2%. This law in my estimation may effect .5% that is 1/2 of 1% of housing. 1500 or so properties. At any one time there are 22,000+ vacant properties in the city of Seattle. Lets create a more efficient rental market, that will have a 10-15x effect on housing So if it does actually eliminate 1500 properties, the actual economic impact would be $224 MILLION ANNUALLY. And the best, part, these are not local dollars. These are dollars from other states, countries, etc supporting our local businesses. So yes, this is bigger than the Mayor or Council member Burgess has any idea.

AMD June 14, 2016 (6:00 pm)

What alternatives have been proposed to help deal with the landlords who are converting full-time rental units into AirBNBs and those who are essentially running hotels while circumventing all regulations pertaining to hotels. From everything I’ve read, this legislation wasn’t created to address or aimed at the small percentage of bona fide vacation rentals in the city. Clearly they’re being affected by the proposal, which is something to take into account, but there are legitimate problems the city is trying to curb with this legislation.

Rhonda Porter June 14, 2016 (6:31 pm)

AMD I have written to all Councilmembers. The properties that are being portrayed in the Seattle Times article seem to be happening more downtown and in the Capital Hill area – not in West Seattle.

The Council should focus on the ones who are creating the issues by overpopulating condos and apartments – possibly violating housing and safety codes instead of using one broad brush. I agree regulations addressing the issues instead of guessing that this may only impact 20% of the vacation rentals (Burgess has admitted to not having all the figures).

West Seattle is unique because of our geography. Being on “the rock”, it takes longer to get into Seattle and we have beachfront areas, like Alki, that people on vacation want to visit.

Our property (and several others) are on the water – the only way to stay on the Sound in Seattle if you’re not using a vacation rental, is staying at the Edgewater – try doing that with a family of 5-6!

JanS June 14, 2016 (6:58 pm)

the more vacation rentals out there, the less rentals for people who work in this city. It’s basic supply and demand…and the prices of long term rentals go up and up and up as supply dwindles. And , I’m sorry, but the people who have 1 or more rental houses besides where they actually live are NOT the ones trying to get by…they are not the ones who have a problem affording the rent in this city. I have lived in West Seattle for 41 years…and I am about priced out..almost 70, disabled, my only family is here nearby. And people keep telling me to move to another city/part of the country where it’s cheaper to live..cold and callous. Of course there are a lot of new builds here…I can’t even afford the so called “low income ” units in these new buildings…not when they border on 1300 and 1400 bucks a month for rent. I say BooHoo to the “poor” folks who own these homes, making a ton of money, and crying about it. You’ve gotten a pass before this…now it’s time to reign it in a little. And I find even less for the guys who are building these micro housing buildings, with no parking, and then using those spaces as hotel rooms. You want a hotel? Build one, and call it that, and pay what needs to be paid for licenses, etc., in order to run one. Give me a break !

JanS June 14, 2016 (7:01 pm)

and if people on vacation want to come see West Seattle’s beautiful shores, get a hotel downtown, rent a car, and drive over and take a picture..or take a bus over…we keep hearing about our wonderful Metro service…let the tourists use it, too (a bit of sarcasm there, if you will)

Rhonda Porter June 14, 2016 (7:08 pm)

Jan,

As I said in the last post, I don’t expect or ask for your or anyone’s sympathy.

Renting a home to a family to stay a couple of days is not a hotel. It’s an affordable alternative to a hotel so they can go on a vacation. It also helps the West Seattle economy.

Many of us are retired or trying to plan for our retirements and should be able to do so.

I suggest you contact the City Council and ask them why they got rid of true affordable low income housing units for developers.

Lagartija Nick June 14, 2016 (7:31 pm)

Simple solution for the vacation rental homeowners who don’t live in those homes. Register your vacation rental property as THE HOTEL THAT IT IS and then you won’t be limited to only being able to rent it out for 90 days.

What a bunch of whiny, self entitled group of scofflaws! You’ve been breaking the laws for years by not paying taxes on your vacation rentals. It’s time to get with the program.

Scupper June 14, 2016 (9:12 pm)

L. Nick, Just bought a house last December that sat on the market for 9 months with several price reductions. Nobody wanted to take it on. Spent my savings on rehabbing it, furniture, state & city business licenses. I’m a whiner for having the laws changed against what I need to do to recoup what I invested? You sound like you’d fit right in with the current City Council mentality. Act without the facts, use a gill net approach to fix a specific issue and spout off accusations you’re ignorant about.

thee June 14, 2016 (8:11 pm)

developers run wild. homeowners not so much.

socialism for the rich. capitalism for everyone else.

–thee

Rhonda Porter June 14, 2016 (8:49 pm)

L. Nick – we pay taxes on our vacation property. We are city and state licensed. I would bet a majority of vacation rentals do the same.

Chemist June 14, 2016 (9:04 pm)

I’m not exactly thrilled with the idea of a Tiny Home rental being allowed to skirt code requirements. A home that can roll away in an earthquake and has online pictures with a clothes washer, indoor fireplace, hundred of books on open shelves above head-level, and has a propane-type hot plate provided for indoor use make me wonder about how someone would fare in an earthquake and how “fire rated” the materials are for the Maiden Mansion tiny home.

Google turns up this statement suggesting she’s an aspiring developer of tiny homes fighting for her business model too –

Hannah spent about $50k building the house, which included hiring a professional to tackle most of the construction. The Maiden Mansion represents the first “floor model” made by her company, Pocket Mansions and she currently rents it through Airbnb, framing it as a tiny bed and breakfast.

Neighbor June 14, 2016 (9:36 pm)

Slightly off topic but may I also say that “hotels” don’t belong in residential neighborhoods. We frequently have to close our bedroom windows because “the vacationers” next door are LOUD – enjoying the hot tub (all seasons), the deck, etc. Can’t tell you how many times our sleep has been disturbed – week nights as well as weekends. And of course the owners of the house are sleeping comfortably in some other neighborhood.

Scupper June 14, 2016 (10:49 pm)

Howdy Neighbor, that’s been a legitimate complaint about short-term rentals in cities where legislation has already been imposed. Language in the licensing of STR’s in Austin TX states that the home owner’s license can be revoked if the home owner can’t keep a lid on their tenants.

On the other hand, we had a permanent local tenant living next door to us and was a total nightmare for years before he was forced to vacate. Sometimes it may be a blessing that you can immediately boot an obnoxious guest to the curb rather than having to put up with it for years. We ended up buying “that” house next door and so far, the STR guests have been very respectful. Knock on wood

Huckblt June 14, 2016 (11:37 pm)

I’d be happy to convert my short term rental to long term if the city would give me a break on my taxes. If they really cared about affordable housing that is.

AMD June 15, 2016 (6:40 am)

I, too, wish I could get a break on my taxes whenever my investments aren’t paying the dividends I want them to.

That’s not how investments work, my friend. You’re not guaranteed top profit for your investment, the government’s concern is not ensuring a windfall from your investment, and you’re not owed some kind of compensation when you don’t get the money you dreamed of from your investment. If you don’t think real estate is worth the trouble, invest your money elsewhere.
- Huckblt June 16, 2016 (2:10 pm)
  
  @AMD
  
  Just to clarify, my point is, if you want me to lower the price of my rental (or to convert my Airbnb to long term rental) then give me a break on my taxes for doing so. If not, I will continue to seek the highest price for my rental, period. And yes, I do understand how investments work (I’ve been a real estate investor since I was 18 years of age).
  
  I did enjoy reading your post though. I wish I could get the government to ensure my investments produce a windfall each and every time. That would be sweet.

JanS June 15, 2016 (12:29 am)

Huckblt, are you saying you can’t afford the rent in Seattle, esp. West Seattle? Or are you saying that because you own more than one home, the mayor/city/CC is not concerned with affordable housing? You make more money on short term rental…I doubt you’re hurting. A tax break? Buying and having a short term rental unit was your personal decision. You could sell it…I understand that it’s a sellers market at the moment…multiple bids on houses, going for far more than asked. And invest that money. You’d still make money, and save yourself property taxes on it, and maintenance. No sympathy, sorry.

John June 15, 2016 (7:27 am)

Per her video request, I looked up Hannah Rose Crabtree and her company Pocket Mansions.

She describes herself as, “a lover and builder of small houses.”

Her “Maiden Mansion” which she acknowledges is not permitted is still listed on AirBnB for $85 per night with an additional $35 cleaning fee. This is the rate she gets in the Westwood Village area, not Alki. No wonder she is lobbying for her businesses. She has avoided all of the costs and overhead facing legal and permitted structures, all the while charging rates comparable to the legal rentals. At least the micro-housing units being rented as AirBnB are fully permitted, modern structures up to current safety codes.

There are always safety issues involved with building permits. Does the ‘Maiden Mansion’ voluntarily meet and exceed all regulations?

Without government oversight, such lucrative sub-standard tiny houses, yurts, campers, trailers and even tents could soon be pitched and rented out in every backyard.

AIDM June 15, 2016 (9:36 am)

In the enormous parameter space of condo-developers, townhouse-developers, house-flippers, apartment owners, and AirBNBers; how can the Seattle City Council have decided that they will try to fix the problem on the back of AirBNBers? This is ludicrous and is only hurting small businesses and people trying to pull in a little extra income. The obvious source of rental issues is the booming tech industry coupled to the enormous amount of high end apartment, condo and townhouse development. Why would the City Council not focus on development first? They seem tone deaf on this issue and unable to formulate a tractable solution.

Heather June 15, 2016 (9:44 am)

@John, Rhonda Porter and Hannah Rose Crabtree are owners of two different properties. Based on the video, I do not agree that “unconventional” short term rentals be grandfathered in (which is what she’s proposing). I am saddened to see that this affects someone’s livelihood, and it’s certainly a cool little house but we have building codes for a reason.

WSMom June 15, 2016 (11:00 am)

Just wondering… How are these yurts, trailers, etc. hooked up to water and sewer. Having lived in a house that had a shared side sewer with 3 other houses (as many WS houses do), I wouldn’t want my neighbor to hack into an already busy side sewer. When clogged or broken, the homeowners share in the big bucks expense of getting them fixed. And installing new access to one’s side sewer requires permitting. If it’s not going into the side sewer, where is it going?

Chemist June 15, 2016 (11:57 am)

I think the sewer line is the 1.5″ or so black hose that’s ducking into a sewer cleanout near the fence at 1:57 in the video here.

Huckblt June 15, 2016 (12:46 pm)

@Jans: I’m not looking for sympathy. You missed my point, which is if the City council truly cares about affordable housing (which seems to be their intent by removing airbnb properties from the market) then I suggest they give airbnb owners property tax breaks if they rent long term and at lower rates. Basically insensitive the owners to action. If not, then leave it to the free market to sort out.

I”m for letting the free market sort it out. I’m sorry that rents have gone up and some can’t afford to live here, but that’s the way the free market works and has always worked (and worked well).

Huckblt, are you saying you can’t afford the rent in Seattle, esp. West Seattle? Or are you saying that because you own more than one home, the mayor/city/CC is not concerned with affordable housing? You make more money on short term rental…I doubt you’re hurting. A tax break? Buying and having a short term rental unit was your personal decision. You could sell it…I understand that it’s a sellers market at the moment…multiple bids on houses, going for far more than asked. And invest that money. You’d still make money, and save yourself property taxes on it, and maintenance. No sympathy, sorry.

flimflam June 15, 2016 (4:39 pm)

i’m surprised these rentals were ever “legal” to begin with. if my neighbor had a revolving door of folks day to day, week to week, with a percentage being loud and obnoxious, i’d be pretty bummed. there are many reasons hotels aren’t in residential neighborhoods…

E June 16, 2016 (2:58 pm)

Agree with Flimflam. Since when is a nightly rental not a hotel or motel. They should not be legal now and likely aren’t. Apartments, hotels, motels are all regulated, registered, inspected, permitted, taxed, you name it. Private, side business, ai bnbs, not so much. Really glad I don’t have one next door.

Huckblt June 16, 2016 (4:00 pm)

@E

My Airbnb/rental is registered with both the City and State and I file/pay all my taxes (and I pay a lot of taxes). I am also inspected, although I believe it is random unless they change that in the future. I’m not sure what other Airbnb operators are doing, but they should all do the same. I think most are.

petra June 16, 2016 (5:07 pm)

I do have one across the street. An air bnb is not a neighbor. It is a business across the street with new people and traffic all the time. I appreciate the income stream it produces for the owner, but the expense is much on the neighborhood and neighbors. Do what you can to avoid it on your street!