Redmond had no issues bringing in lots of land that has subsequently gone up for development or is awaiting master planning.I think this subject is a hot topic that you and I may disagree with on some levels and am not sure that this is the forum to argue the merits of the "draconian" legislation, that we both agree is fundamentally flawed and needs changes.

Then start the administrative process serving them an affidavit of truth...citing all the sections of the state constitution the are violating, like taking private property for personal use without legislation (from the general assembly...general law) not ******** special law codes and statutes, and just compensation for its use. 

While we would all like for our tenants and their children to be fine and upstanding citizens in and away from our properties, we cannot legislate it. 

Many jurisdictions are now introducing mixed use development legislation.

A contingent of CA legislators recently headed down to TX to find out why the state is doing so well compared to CA.

Dodd/Frank legislation gave us that distinction. 

We are providing a public service.And it is true, there are people who abuse the ESA registration - Mike is again spot on with how to channel everyone's collective frustration with this into demanding legislation and uniform guidelines. 

2010 DZC, Section 11.8.2.2.4 requires the owner of a zone lot.......If this is in fact the incorrect wording then the go around of using a TENANT as the permanent resident is illegal.If the code is written to not require a OWNER to live there and that was the intent of the code  legislators need to take action to close this loop hole. 

I make sure I look for any STR regulation, permitting restrictions or ongoing legislation in the area to make sure nothing crazy is about to pop up in the near future from an STR compliance perspective.  

The trouble I see with that the proposed legislation, especially in areas like mine, is that it will probably only exacerbate the issue.