Property rights is what it seems to boil down to. "I've got a right to do whatever I want to do with my property and it's all spelled out in the Constitution and that Bill o' Rights thingy," seems to be the rallying cry when it comes to whether or not people should be allowed to rent their homes on a short-term basis to anyone.
And where is the city on this?
Ducking and covering with one hand under vague and ambiguous rules that seem to be lifted in part from the Magna Carta and scrapping together with the other hand what little sales tax money it can detect from these isolated little hot beds of "free enterprise."
Long-term rentals, arguably, serve the purpose of property preservation and establishing continuity to a neighborhood.
As has been pointed out in the past, short-term rental seem to be targeted at one goal. Let's make that money to pay that mortgage on that house that maybe we shouldn't have bought in the first place.
We have no arguments with relatives coming to stay for a week and visit. But when money is exchanged it is a commercial venture and should be viewed as such.
Cities develop "residential zones" and "commercial zones" to protect each area of interest. A manufactured home has no business being erected next to a furniture factory outlet and and a liquor establishment should not be built within a cluster of single-family homes.
City officials have been charged with protecting the health, safety and welfare of their residents. By turning a blind eye and finally "grandfathering" what's been ignored for too long, they show a disrespect for those they are supposed to represent and to the community that they say they love.
Some say let's wait until there is proof that there is a problem. Why pry open that blind eye that has seemed to serve us so well.
Why not, we're going to wait until there is a fire before we buy any more fire-fighting equipment.
Habits, especially those that come off as arbitrary, capricious and smack of favoritism are often the toughest ones to break.