Study after study is showing that short-term vacation rentals negatively impact neighborhoods. That's true even in parts of cities where STVR are not prevalent, as the San Diego affordable housing study on this page shows. STUDIESSAN DIEGO VAC. RENTAL DATAPENN STATE STUDYNYC-AIRBNB STUDYUNITE HERE SAN DIEGO STUDY
The view of the California Supreme Court:
"Transient rentals … undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of a community. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.”
A reference list of key documents
From the Position Paper of Save San Diego Neighborhoods to the 2015 City Attorney Memo that "clarified" a previous memo, there is a sizable trail of documents related to the STRV issue in San Diego. Here, on one page, are short descriptions of relevant documents and links to the entire documents.
An easy-to-read 10-page analysis - including excerpts from the San Diego Municipal Code (see left) - that explains why short-term vacation rentals are illegal in all residential zones in the City.
On Dec. 21, 2015, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith issued a Memorandum of short-term vacation rentals in RS zones to the mayor and City Council clarifying a flawed memo issued in 2007 by then City Attorney Mike Aguirre. Goldsmith's 2015 memo includes the following: “The 'visitor accommodations' ordinance is not based upon a specific term of an occupancy, so it does not bar 'short-term' rentals. It does, however, bar residential uses that 'provide lodging … primarily to visitors and tourists.' ”
A legal analysis of the flawed 2007 City Attorney memo by an expert land-use attorney, whose conclusions have since been supported by more than two dozen land-use experts and two sitting city attorneys in California. The analysis concluded: "The City Attorney memorandum analyzing whether the SDMC prohibits or regulates STVRs omits analysis of relevant SDMC provisions, frames the issue in a results-oriented fashion and fails to analyze the issue consistently with established principles of statutory construction and interpretation. As such, the analysis is incomplete and the conclusions are unsupported."
See Santa Monica's report on how it stopped STVR in RS zones and then amended its code to allow home sharing. It is an ideal guide for San Diego.
See how Santa Barbara's Planning Commission prepared to accept home sharing after STVR were banned in the city. It also is an ideal guide for San Diego.