• Chiron Click

    Virtually every municipality in the country allows owner-occupied, primary-residence “home-share rentals”, while many restrict non-owner occupied “vacation rentals”. That is because owner-occupied rentals, like b&b rentals are supervised, and also don’t take away housing stock from the community. Santa Monica is an example of this. Because Anaheim is a tourism-driven economy, however, it would make more sense t simply step up enforcement. Is there a court that handles nuisances? Could a 3 strikes policy be instituted so that “bad actors” would be weeded out, while responsible owners could function?

    • Daniel Robbins

      Hi Chiron,

      Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated over the course of the past year, code enforcement in Anaheim is unable to adequately handle the issues that have arisen as a result of short term rentals.

      In case you aren’t aware, I’d like to bring up the Anaheim Rental Alliance, and their ties to the initial ordinance regulating short term rentals (4.05). If you have time, to and watch the Anaheim city council meeting from May 6th, 2014. In it, you will be able to note how often the city council thanks the ARA for all of their input. If memory serves me correction, the entirety of the city council thanks them at one point or another. Therefore, it can be concluded that the current ordinance was authored by those who it would be regulating.
      Now, originally the ARA was intended to be a group of owners who respected the community and wished to see everyone prosper. As short term rental investment became increasingly popular in Anaheim, control was taken by those who can, irrefutably, be deemed “bad owners”.

      In a document request from the city, it was discovered that the representatives on the short term rental side of the task force, set up in late 2015, had dozens of police responses to their properties, and had tens of thousands in fines from the city for violating municipal codes. These were considered to be the “good owners”.

      Needless to say, you can see where the problem arises. If someone owns 10 properties, do all of the permits get pulled if one gets “striked” out?

      The city has demonstrated a great level of neglect in their closing down of the properties found to consistently be violating municipal codes. Two weeks ago, a group of STRs received notices stating that their utilities were going to be shut off if they continued to operate illegally.

      And yet, most, if not all of them, are still occupied by renters today.

      So the question arises: at what point do the residents lose faith in the cities ability to regulate these properties? If the city is unable to regulate with the current municipal code, what would make anyone believe that more rules, requiring more enforcement, would be the answer?

      Lastly, what exactly is a “good owner”, and where are they hiding? The owners who are supposed to be “good” have been outed as, in fact, being quite “bad”.

      • Chiron Click

        Thanks for your reply. Again, having an owner-occupied primary residence restriction is the easiest solution. But yes, if investor owned STR is allowed, then if an owner has 3strikes that the court deems legitimate, then all of their licences should be revoked.

  • Pierre

    We need a ban on STR:s. The area is zoned residential for a reason. This is our refuge, our home. We don’t need problems with noise, trash, our cars being hit, excessive traffic and more. I own a small business and have to keep it in the area zoned for that, it’s how it should be. When STR:s move in among us, we have no say so. All of a sudden there is a noisy business next door! Keep tourism in the zoned hotel areas.
    A complete STR ban is the solution.

  • Austin Lynch

    Daniel is right; STR’s are hurting Anaheim neighborhoods, housing and jobs. Los Angeles is taking a sensible approach – we should follow their lead