New Colorado Springs STR Ordinance Proposal

[Thadeous Larkin]

If you've spoken with me for more than 10 minutes, you know I'm a big fan of STRs and AirBnB as both a host (SuperHost, in fact, nbd, just a celebrity here) and as a traveler.  I find that STRs are a great way to experience a city and stay someplace fun and unique.

The Colorado Springs City Council, however, doesn't seem to share my enthusiasm. If you've spoken to me for more than 15 minutes, you know that from atop my soapbox I have loudly proclaimed that the minute any Government starts talking about "reasonable regulations" on an activity, they are just talking about the thin edge of the axe and are using them to break down the door. Colorado Springs instituted their first STR regulations last year. And here comes the new proposal.

Today I received an email from the Colorado Springs City Planner notifying me of a public hearing for a new proposed "density" ordinance for STRs.  (credit where credit is due, good on the City for going out of their way to alert me to this travesty...they could have just snuck it into some vague public notice, but they specifically emailed me about it.  Also, credit to me for giving credit to them).

The upshot is that Colorado Springs is considering Manitou Springs-like regulations that prevent STRs from being close together.

I'll post the body of the email below so you can see what all it entails.  I can also offer my thoughts on the subject if anyone is actually interested and can go (I'll be in Chicago and unable to attend).  So if someone wants to be my proxy, I'll fire off my thoughts:

FULL EMAIL BELOW

You are receiving this email as you are either the owner of a property with an active short term rental permit and/or were the applicant for an active short term rental permit.

In an effort to be informative and transparent, the City Council has asked Staff to explore potential Code amendments addressing occupancy and permit density limitations. The proposed amendments will be presented at public hearing next Tuesday, September 24th in City Hall starting at 10:00 am. Interested parties should use the following link for more detailed information at the following link – https://coloradosprings.gov/city-council - after it is posted this Friday.

The meeting will begin at 10:00 am, but I am not sure what the order of presentations will be. Please be aware the order of presentations is established through the agenda.

To hit the high points of the differences between the existing ordinance vs proposed ordinances –

Current Ordinance

Occupancy

Occupancy is limited to no more than 5 unrelated individuals OR no more than 16 related individuals acting as one living unit.

Density

There are currently no density regulations for STRs.

Proposed Ordinances

Occupancy

“Maximum overnight occupancy of a short term rental unit shall be limited to two (2) occupants over the age of twelve (12) per bedroom.”

Permit Density

Three options will be presented –

1. Five-lot separation between issued permits;

2. Limited the number of permits on a block face;

3. 500’ buffer spacing.

*Note if any density ordinance amendment is approved, all permits that were issued previous to the City Council meeting will be grandfathered.*

As the meeting is a public hearing, anyone is welcome to speak in support or opposition regarding the proposed amendments.

Thank you all for being a part of the STR Program.

[Thadeous Larkin]

@Joe Splitrock - And see?  You've helped identify my issue with the overuse of the term "reasonable."  The inference is that I, by opposing these regulations, am unreasonable.  But I'm not.  BUT me declaring that I'm being reasonable isn't terribly constructive either.  

Now, calling me "naive" later in your post is just plain impolite. Saying "regulations like this are a slippery slope to extinguishing the industry" isn't anywhere close to saying "I'm so ignorant that I couldn't foresee the City ever imposing restrictions." I'm sure we can talk about STR regulations without resorting to ad hominem attacks, can't we? Such behavior coming from a moderator, no less. Tsk, tsk.

So, it's probably more useful not to engage in fluffy absolutes (like whether or not I'm being reasonable...subjective terms like that are about as useful as "ugly" or "bad") and focus on the merits of the proposal itself.  You'll note that in my original post I offer my thoughts on the subject if anyone is interested.

My main issue with your post is that it echos just the type of criticisms that I hear about AirBnB all the time, namely that they are nonspecific and prone to exaggeration.

For example:  Where, exactly, are STRs "destroying the fabric of neighborhoods" in Colorado Springs?  Can you tell me which neighborhoods those might be?  Or which neighborhoods are being turned into "hotel complex"es?  Nobody can tell me exactly where those are or point to any specific negative impacts.  

Is there any study anywhere in Colorado Springs that indicates that property values are going down because of STRs?  That there has been a surge in nuisance calls to the police that are associated with STRs?  That all current residential codes are insufficient to curb any quality of life measures that are anecdotally cited ("I had trouble getting out of my driveway one day because the AirBnB guest next door parked too close!")?  

Nobody anywhere ever has cited any of that information to me for Colorado Springs.  And I doubt that anyone ever will.  Because that evidence doesn't exist.

It begs the question: when you're not basing city regulations on evidence...what are you basing them on?  

Here are some other questions to consider:

1) Is there any city ordinance that prevents me from engaging in exactly the same behavior as I engage in for my STR when it's not for money? As an example: My parents are staying at my house right now and parking on the street. What about a hypothetical wherein I charge my parents money for staying at my house - what suddenly makes this behavior different than when it's for free? How is that ripping asunder the fabric of my neighborhood?

2) I'm active duty military* and so are quite a lot of residents of Colorado Springs (Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, Air Force Academy, etc. etc.). We tend to be moved around (permanently) and/or deployed for short or long periods of time. Must we be forced to either leave our houses vacant or rent them to long-term residents only during those periods? Many of us use VA Loans to acquire properties, which specifically prohibit some long-term renting if we come back and don't occupy our property. What if we happen to live next door to someone who operates an AirBnB, then have to head to Afghanistan for a few months/an unknown period of time? We're just out of luck? Such regulations in effect, not in intent, limit the options of the service members who make up a considerable number of the Colorado Springs Community.

3)  Colorado Springs already has regulations on the books for operating a business out of a residential dwelling.  It's not unheard of to meld businesses with residential properties.  Not every business needs a storefront.  And I don't want to hear any arguments about increases in traffic - I would guarantee that those Amazon Prime trucks that go bombing around my neighborhood are more frequent and deliver more goods than any other residence-based business.

4) These regulations are onerous and unwieldy. Unlike the current registration requirements, these add layers of information that has to be sorted through for both government and prospective STR-owners. What associated costs and added bureaucracy will be necessary to map out where STRs are located and the spacing between them? Manitou Springs has an ordinance like this in place. I have NO idea where they consolidate that information, and it certainly isn't easily accessible. Not saying Governments have to make everything super easy for me, but transparent government is good government.

5)  Occupancy - this doesn't bother me too much, but since you ask what about it isn't reasonable, I'll answer:  Two occupants over the age of 12 per bedroom is pretty arbitrary.  My recollection of the city's ordinances on sanitary conditions/occupancy is that they are otherwise based on occupant per square foot.  So someone who has a conforming bedroom that measures 6' x 8' can stuff two adults and 14 children under the age of 12 into it, but someone with a palatial 20' x 25' bedroom can't have three adults sleep there?  Get out of town.  That's just poorly-written statutory construction.

I could go on and on, but I doubt anyone cares that much about my answers to you besides me and you.

In sum, I begrudgingly put up with non-evidence based ordinances, I don't celebrate them.  I certainly don't welcome them and shouldn't be expected to go along willingly with whatever new regulations are put forward under the guise that they somehow protect my investments.  They don't.

* These are my personal views and do not represent the views of the DOD, Department of the Army, the Federal Government, or any entity therein.  The views are entirely my own and are not express or implied views of any governmental agency.