Archive for the ‘housing’ Category

SPUR = WASP? Here’s Your Racist Recent History of “SF Planning & Urban Research”

Friday, March 27th, 2015

This one from SPUR – San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association is hard to believe:

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten, Farrell, and Weese 1966)

Here you go.

And here’s the actual document itself, from our California Historical Society at 678 Mission Street:

P1190873 copy

Here you go, under “Issue B”

P1190864 copy

Click to expand

P1190862 copy

P1190863 copy

P1190866 copy

It’s, as always, the prospect of a “provincial” SF versus a world-class SF. What SPUR wants is to take tax and fee payer money and give it to … SPUR, so it then can advocate spending more tax and fee payer money on whatever flavor of the month development program its members stand to make money from. Why does SFGov give any money at all to SPUR?

What’s actually changed at SPUR the past four decades, aside from them saying that the UR in SPUR no longer stands for “Urban Renewal?”

What a horrible organization.

Sign of the Times: “STOP EVICTIONS,” Western Addition

Wednesday, March 18th, 2015

7J7C3876 copy

Wow, Look What That “SPUR” Organization Did to the Western Addition – It’s Like a Bomb Went Off

Friday, March 6th, 2015

Capturespur copy

Nice Urban Renewal you had there, SPUR:

That same year, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) produced a report entitled “Prologue to Action” arguing that, to enable the city to compete effectively, city government should influence growth so that San Francisco’s population “will move closer to ‘standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant’ characteristics.” (Hirten, Farrell, and Weese 1966)

The genesis of urban renewal, from a couple decades before:

The presence in the Western Addition District of a high proportion of negro and foreign-born families presents a special problem. As was pointed out earlier, about 26% of the population in this District consists of Negroes, and another 9% Japanese, Chinese, and other foreign nationalities. In view of the characteristically low income of colored and foreign-born families, only a relatively small proportion of them may be expected to occupy quarters in the new development. 

Hey SPUR, don’t just do something, stand there.

The San Francisco Chronicle’s CW Nevius Pushes Advocacy Journalism Beyond Its Limits: Rent Control en la Mision

Monday, February 9th, 2015

Is this bit here from CW Nevius at all persuasive to you? It’s not to me. And probably it’s not to most people.

And you know, there’s not a whole bunch of “tenant activists” in the bay area either. Yet CW seems to think the world is divided into two sections:

1. Right-thinking, right-side-of-the-aisle activist people such as himself; and

2. Tenant activists

But IRL, most people aren’t activists.

And the reason why it seems that CW Nevius works hand-in-hand with local pols who despise rent control is that CW Nevius actually is working hand-in-hand with local pols who despise rent control. Except CW doesn’t have to worry about losing future elections, so he’s free to speak out on behalf those pols who are terrified of being depicted as anti-rent control. So that’s your symbiotic relationship. I’m unaware of anybody else at the SF Chronicle who has this kind of relationship with local pols. I’m saying, from an outsider’s perspective, the writings of CW Nevius really stand out. He’s an outlier.

Leave us begin:

Through no fault of their own, the married couple has been displaced from their Mission District home by tenants who refuse to move unless they receive a payment of well over $100,000.

UH, NO THEY WEREN’T “DISPLACED.” WHAT HAPPENED WAS THEY MOVED OVERSEAS AND THEN RENTED OUT THEIR PART OF A TIC TO A COUPLE OF TENANTS IN A RENT-CONTROLLED CITY. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS AN OMI PROCEEDING. SO, IN FACT, THEY CAN MOVE BACK “HOME.”

…an eviction would violate the terms of a TIC-to-condo conversion ordinance and they — and the other two co-owners of their building — would never be able to convert their tenancy-in-common unit to a condominium.

TICs AREN’T FOR EVERYBODY, RIGHT? LOTS OF THINGS CAN GO WRONG WITH A TIC, RIGHT?

“We may lose control of our home for the rest of our lives,” Rumpler said. “They must have been instructed that they are sitting on a gold mine. They’re dug in, and we’re stuck.”

AGAIN, YOU DO AN OMI OR YOU DON’T DO AN OMI – CALLING UP CW NEVIUS ISN’T GOING TO HELP WITH THIS SITUATION.

When the condo conversion ordinance was passed in June 2013, it seemed like relief for thousands of San Franciscans.

THOUSANDS OF WEALTHY SAN FRANCISCANS WHO WERE TAKING A CHANCE ON AN INHERENTLY RISKY TIC INVESTMENT, RIGHT?

They were buyers who purchased tenancy-in-common units and then spent years on a waiting list, hoping to be one of 200 chosen in the conversion lottery each year.

HOW IS THIS NOT LIKE ROULETTE?

“In this case the tenants were able to take advantage of the rules that were probably not designed to work this way,” Meirson said.

THIS IS RENT CONTROL IN ACTION. THE RULES WERE EXACTLY DESIGNED TO WORK THIS WAY. EXACTLY.

“It is a very real possibility that these tenants will remain with a lifetime lease and the owners may never be able to move back home. Is this what the law was meant to do?”

THIS IS RENT CONTROL IN ACTION. THE RULES WERE EXACTLY DESIGNED TO WORK THIS WAY. EXACTLY.

The irony, of course, is that if the roles were reversed and an older, married gay couple — one of whom has ALS — were being asked to leave a rental unit…

WHOA NELLIE! THE NEVIUSNESS OF THIS SENTENCE IS QUITE HIGH ALREADY, SO LET’S SLOW THINGS DOWN HERE. ALL RIGHT, IS IT REALLY A SMART IDEA TO “ASK” A TENANT TO LEAVE A RENT CONTROLLED UNIT? I SURE AS HECK DON’T THINK SO. THERE ARE POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DOING THAT, RIGHT? WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WALNUT CREEK HERE, RIGHT? WE’RE TALKING SAN FRANCISCO, HOME OF SOME OF THE MOST EXTREME PRO-TENANT LAWS IN AMERICA, RIGHT? SO, IF YOU’RE NOT CUT OUT TO BE A SAN FRANCISCO LANDLORD, WHY WOULD YOU PICK THIS PLACE, OF ALL PLACES, TO BECOME A LANDLORD? AND WHATEVER YOU DO, DON’T TAKE LANDLORD-TENANT ADVICE FROM CW NEVIUS, THE SAN FRANCISCO NEWCOMER STRAIGHT OUTTA THE 925.

…by a young, financially well-off couple in their 20s, there would be an uproar from tenant advocates.

WELL, NUMBER ONE, THERE WOULDN’T BE AN UPROAR. AND NUMBER TWO, WHERE DOES THE “OF COURSE” COME FROM, WHERE’S THE “IRONY?” THIS IS RENT CONTROL IN ACTION. IT SOUNDS LIKE CW NEVIUS DOESN’T LIKE SF RENT CONTROL.

Instead, this turns the whole scenario on its head.

I’M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND HERE. IT WOULD BE NICE IF CW NEVIUS COULD FIND HIS WAY DOWN TO THE RENT BOARD TO SEE HOW THE RULES WORK IN HIS NEW-FOUND HOME. I DON’T THINK HE UNDERSTANDS.

The tenants, who declined to be interviewed, are in their early 20s and hardly impoverished. Rumpler says both of them work in the tech industry.

HERE’S A NEWS FLASH FOR CW NEVIUS: RENT CONTROL ISN’T MEANS-TESTED IN SF. IMPOVERISHMENT ISN’T A FACTOR. WHAT INDUSTRY THE TENANTS WORK IN IS NOT A FACTOR.

“My understanding is that they work in a high-income profession,” said Meirson. “They probably make more than the landlords in this case.”

OH “PROBABLY.” AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE LESS WEALTH TOO, RIGHT? I’M FAILING TO SEE HOW THIS ISN’T A RUN-OF THE-MILL RENT CONTROL SITUATION, SIMILAR TO OVER 100,000 OTHERS IN SF.

“We would be very happy to settle with them for a reasonable amount of money. We said, ‘We can give you $25,000 and they said, ‘Not even close.’”

ALL RIGHT, $25K. LET’S REMEMBER THIS FIGURE.

The quirky part of this story is that Rumpler and Scovern are victims of bad timing.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING IN REAL ESTATE, RIGHT? BUYING A TIC HOPING TO “WIN” A “LOTTERY” WHEN THE RULES ARE NOT AT ALL STABLE IS EXPOSING YOURSELF TO POLITICAL RISK, RIGHT?

When Scovern got a short-term job offer in Melbourne, Australia, in September 2012, Rumpler says they “pretty naively entered into the rental market.”

“NAIVELY?” DING DING DING DING DING DING! AND HEY, SPEAKING OF SCOVERN, GUESS WHO HAS AN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING DEGREE? SO NEVIUS RELIES ON A SECOND-HAND SOURCE FOR THE OCCUPATIONS OF THE TENANTS, BUT IGNORES THE “TECHIE” LANDLORD IN THIS CASE. THAT’S SO RAVEN NEVIUS!

They used a rental agent to find tenants, with the idea that they’d be back in two years.

IN A RENT-CONTROLLED UNIT. SOUNDS LIKE A BAD IDEA.

Because they are less expensive than an outright condo purchase, they have been a gateway to ownership in a city where housing is incredibly expensive.

TICS HAVE A LOT OF BAD ASPECTS. IS OWNERSHIP SUCH A GOOD IDEA IN SF? IT WORKS OUT FOR MOST PEOPLE, BUT THERE ARE RISKS. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDE DALY CITY AND … WALNUT CREEK. SRSLY.

At this point the two sides are at stalemate.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS. IF THIS LL/TENANT COMBO IS AT STALEMATE, THEN SO ARE MOST LL/TENANT COMBOS IN SF. WHAT MAKES THIS UNIT SPECIAL?

Rumpler says the first suggestion by the tenants for a payout to move was based on the idea that they would have to pay an additional $1,500 a month for 10 years. That’s $18,000 a year for a total of $180,000. “It might as well have been a million,” Rumpler said. “We’re not paying the ransom.”

SO YOU’RE WILLING TO PAY $25K IN RANSOM BUT NOT $180K IN RANSOM BUT THE $25K ISN’T RANSOM? MMMM…

WHAT NEVIUS DOESN’T SHARE WITH HIS READERS IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT SPENT FOR THE TIC AND THE VALUE OF IT NOW AND ALSO THE VALUE OF IT AFTER CONDO CONVERSION. THESE NUMBERS ARE PRETTY KNOWABLE BUT THEY MIGHT TURN OFF SOME OF THE READERS THAT NEVIUS IS TRYING, FOR SOME REASON, TO PERSUADE.

AND YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE BOUGHT REAL ESTATE IN 2006, AND, “THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN,” ENDED UP UNDERWATER. WHERE’S THEIR NEVIUS COLUMN?

IF I WERE THE NEVIUS, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN UP ON THIS STORY.

SOME FISH YOU SHOULD JUST THROW BACK.

American Gothic, 94117 – Beige House, Yellow House, Blue Fintail Mercedes-Benz

Thursday, February 5th, 2015

P1190065 copy

Can the Managers of the New 100 Van Ness Apartment Building Get Away with Making “Security Deposits” Non-Refundable? We’ll See

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Click on “Lease Now” to see this:

“*To reserve your new home, please click the “Get Approved” button above to complete our rental application and start the screening process. You will be required to submit a payment of $35.00 for the non-refundable Application Fee and the Security Deposit of $500-$1000 for the apartment is due within 72 hours by drop off or overnight mail. After three days from the date of application, the Security Deposit is non-refundable.”

Well, first off, “home.” Like, it’s not even a condo, man. How about “apartment” instead?

And second off, I ain’t never paid no nonrefundable application fee. What you do is ask how much the  credit / eviction check costs them and then offer to pay that. If that’s a no-go, then perhaps you shouldn’t move in? (I realize that building employees have to deal with flaky people all the time, but I’m not the flaky people category, I don’t think.*)

What really grinds my gears is the idea of any building manager talking about any kind of “non-refundable” deposit. Such a deposit does not exist under California law.

Check it:

(m) “No lease or rental agreement may contain a provision characterizing any security as “nonrefundable.”

You want to quibble? Fine, quibble, but this non-refundable status is agin the law, agin the law I tells you!

Most people in Cali can market apartments without prima facie violations of Cali law. So why can’t you, 100 Van Ness? Why can’t you?

Just asking.

Oh what’s that, what’s $35 to somebody who thinks moving into the Outer Twitterloin at $4000 for a one-bedroom is a good idea? All right, well, maybe it’s not a good idea to move into this building. Realize that most of the non-BMR people are probably not going to renew after their first year (just like at the abysmal “luxury” Fillmore Center apartments near Japantown, where you can pay thousands and thousands per month in rent, and for what). So, why are so many people going to move out of 100 VN after just a year? Think on that. Part of the reason might have to do with dealing with the 20-somethings in “building management.” Are they going to come in and say, uh oh, you walked on our cheap, brand-new hardwood flooring in high heels so here’s a bill for $7,000 for reflooring? Maybe. (Stuff like that happens just around the corner of 100VN all the time.) And there’s the nabe, which might wear you down over the months. OTOH, maybe this building is a dream come true for you, right next to Van Ness Station and not too far from the Civic Center BART Station. Fine, be my guest. Enjoy. But the same 20-something chicas who don’t understand why it’s not kosher to expropriate four-figure “Security Deposits” in the Great State of California just might not be aware of all the other laws what protect you.

Oh, what’s that, it’s OK to retain a “holding deposit?” Well, we aren’t at that point yet, because you all labeled it a “Security Deposit.” I’m now satisfied that you all don’t know what you’re doing. Welcome to Cali, 100VN Management. It’s going to be a bumpy ride…

END OF LINE

*Like the last time I bought a car, I didn’t even test drive it. No salesperson neither – the “big guy” had to assign a salesperson to me at the end of the sales process in order to “get the transaction to go through.” This sales process took about seven minutes. Later on, the salesperson had to “orient” me. I asked for the 30-second version of his 20-minute spiel. It was basically this: “Never press this button.” And I’ll tell you, that was good advice. I had already figured the downsides of pressing the button and if I hadn’t, then I would have figured things out fast, like during the times that I pressed that button by mistake. In any event, what he meant was, never press this button unless you know what it does and the conditions are right for it.  The point is that I’m not a flake so I never pay no nonrefundable application fee and you shouldn’t either. Sometimes, like back during Dot Com 1 in the late ’90’s, landlords would harvest thousands of dollars in application fees for just one unit over one weekend. Did the LLs actually run the checks potential tenants paid for? Nope. That’s what made it a scam. A nice, four-figure, income tax-free scam. These days, they charge you $35 to run a check that costs them even less than before, like a few bucks max. Oh well.  

Two Views of the Refurbished AAA Building – 100 Van Ness is Now Move-In Ready – Studios Start at $3090 per Month

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

That was the windup, and here’s the pitch, for our old AAA car club building / brand-new apartment building:

100 Van Ness combines elevation with elegance offering highrise living with sweeping multi-million dollar views. Our amenity filled Rooftop Terrace elevates 374 feet above ground creating panoramic views of the Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge, Twin Peaks, and everything in between! This world class building is conveniently located within walking distance to public transportation, shopping, dinning, and entertainment.”

(Remember, these aren’t just million dollar views, they’re “multi-million dollar views,” whatever the Hell that means.)

(And remember, 100 Van Ness is a “world class building” – it’s all they talk about at Versailles these days, I’m sure…)

Now, why do they charge $3090 (and up!) per month for small studios? Well, so you can subsidize the rent of all your new BMR neighbors, so that people who lived in SF longer than you auslanders can pay just $1139 a month for much larger two-bedrooms. It’s the Circle of Life, or something.

Oh, and even tho this building be old, there’s no rent control, having to do with the date on the Occupancy Permit. So maybe you’ll get a $1000 a month rent increase after you first year’s lease is up, who knows.

Anyway, the refurbishment looks pretty much done these days. The current view from the south:

7J7C2775 copy

And from the north, with City Hall, with the highest classical dome in the Western Hemisphere (yes, classical, highest, Western, if those are the parameters, SF wins the contest) in the foreground:

7J7C2776 copy

And where’s the closest gro sto? IDK. One supposes the “ghetto Safeway” at Church and Market, but I’m not sure.

Old School: 1) Struggle to Leave the Projects. 2) Celebrate by Buying a Mercedes – New School: Struggle to Get _Into_ the Projects

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015

And of course, get the Mercedes first, the better to enjoy your free parking space a stone’s throw from City Hall, you know, when you get the chance to move in.

Thusly, as seen on McAllister, pulling into the PJs near Gough.

7J7C2686 copy

Did I mention that this is a gated community? Yes, it is. One supposes residents are given gate-opening Genie-style remotes to put inside their Mercedeses.

Sometimes you look and half the cars parked inside the gates are Mercedeses, Lexuseses or BMW’s.

Oh Lord, won’t You buy me a Mercedes Benz? 

The Chimneys of 2622 Jackson – Where Japanese Consulate Secrets Went Up in Smoke on Dec 7, 1941 – A Fine Stone House

Friday, January 23rd, 2015

Here you go, 2622 Jackson in Pacific Heights. It was the Japanese Consulate in San Francisco until just after the start of WWII. And how do you get rid of your papers back in ’41 before you leave town all of a sudden? You burn them, the same way diplomatic staff did all over America, like in DC and New Orleans.

The Gibbs mansion, designed by SF architect Willis Polk and used as the Japanese consulate before the war:

P1180640 copy

And then Harry Potter director Chris Columbus bought the place – I don’t know where he lives now…

What will happen next at this grand stone palace…

That’s It, the Golden Age of Airbnb in San Francisco is Over: City Starts Accepting Short Term Rental Applications Feb 2nd

Friday, January 16th, 2015

The always-reliable Socketsite has the bad news.

Here it is, just posted by the Planning Department.

Oh, be sure to show them your half-million dollar liability insurance policy that I’m sure you already have (haha!).

If Airbnb is your bidness, you might even welcome these new regs. But if you are the more casual renter-outer, well, brace yourself for dealing with SFGov.

And here’s the kicker:

“You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.”

Choose wisely, Airbnbers…

“Short-Term Residential Rental Registry

Frequently Asked Questions

Applications Accepted Beginning February 2nd, 2015.

What is the SF Short-Term Residential Rental Ordinance?
On October 27th, 2014 Mayor Lee signed San Francisco Ordinance No. 218-14, amending the Administrative and Planning Codes to allow some residential properties to conduct short-term residential rentals without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. A short-term residential rental is a rental of all or a portion of your residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights. This law will become effective on February 1st, 2015. At that time, eligible Permanent Residents (owners and tenants) will be able to apply to place their residential unit on the Planning Department’s Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.

What can I do with a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration?
With a valid Short-Term Residential Rental Registration you may rent your primary residential unit for periods of less than 30 nights without violating the requirements of the City’s Residential Unit Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 41A) or the Planning Code. This includes renting a portion or your entire unit while you are also present for an unlimited number of nights per year and renting a portion or your entire unit while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per year.

How can I apply to be on the Registry?
Short-Term Residential Rental Applications will be made available online and at the Planning Information Center (PIC) located at the ground floor of 1660 Mission Street. To register your unit, you will need to make an appointment with the San Francisco Planning Department to meet with staff and submit your application.Applications must be filed in person by the permanent resident whose name will appear on the registry. Applications may not be filed by representatives or agents. Drop-ins or dropped off applications will not be accepted. The Planning Department will begin conducting intake appointments on Monday, February 2nd. To schedule an intake appointment, please call 415-575-9179 after Monday, January 26th.

You may not rent your unit (in all or a portion) as a short-term residential rental until you have received a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration number from the Planning Department.

Who is eligible to register?
In order to conduct a short-term residential rental you must meet all of the following conditions:

  • You must be the Permanent Resident (owner or tenant) of the residential unit that you wish to rent short-term. This means you must live in that specific residential unit for at least 275 nights of any given calendar year. If you are a new resident you must have occupied this specific unit for at least 60 consecutive days prior to your application. If you own a multi-unit building, you may only register the specific residential unit in which you reside.
  • You must obtain liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000 or provide proof that liability coverage in an equal or higher amount is being provided by any and all hosting platforms through which you will rent your unit.
  • Your residential unit must not have any outstanding Planning, Building, Housing, Fire, Health, Police, or other applicable City code violations.
  • You may only register one residential unit.
  • Please note that residential units that are subject to the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program and residential units designated as below market rate (BMR) or income-restricted under City, state, or federal law are not eligible to register.
  • Important note for tenants:  The Planning Department strongly recommends that you review your lease before submitting an application. The registration of your residential  unit on the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry does not override any lease agreements, homeowner’s association bylaws, Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), or any other agreement, law, or regulations that prohibit subletting or use of your unit as a short-term residential rental.

Is there an application fee?
Yes. The fee for the initial application is $50.00. Your registration will remain valid for two years (pending the registered unit remains in good standing)

At your appointment you will need to provide all of the following items:

  • A completed Short-Term Residential Rental Application (download application packet here)
  • A Business Registration Certificate issued by the San Francisco Treasurer and Tax Collector’s Office
  • Driver’s License or State Issued ID Card issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date and valid for at least the next 6 months
  • Proof of  liability insurance in the amount of no less than $500,000
  • A signed affidavit agreeing to abide by all conditions of the short-term residential rental ordinance included within the application (download application packet here).
  • A check made out to the San Francisco Planning Department for $50.00
  • At least two of the following listed documents to confirm your primary residency at your residential unit:
  • Proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption. Accepted as a form of residency confirmation only if the proof of a Homeowner’s Tax Exemption is for a property that is either a single-family dwelling or condominium; 
  • Voter Registration Card or Certificate with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date. You may obtain a copy through the San FranciscoDepartment of Elections;
  • Proof of Vehicle Registration with the address on the application, issued at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential rental application date;
  • Proof of car insurance, showing address of registration, issued at least 60 days prior;
  • Original utility bill, issued by a public utility or PG&E, at least 60 days prior to the short-term residential application date. Copies and printouts will not be accepted. You may only use utility bills as one form of residency confirmation. Cable, cell phone, and internet bills do not qualify.

If you are a tenant of your residential unit you will also need to provide a copy of your lease or rental agreement. Please note that upon receipt of your completed application, the Planning Department will send a notice to the owner(s) of your unit, informing the owner(s) that your application has been received.

What will happen at my intake appointment?
Staff will review your application and related materials for completeness and intake. Only applications deemed complete at the time of submittal will be accepted for intake and further review. Additionally, staff will go over conditions and limitations of renting your unit as a short-term rental.

What happens after I’ve submitted my application?
It is expected that the Planning Department will review a completed application within fifteen (15) business days. If the Planning Department determines that your application meets the criteria then your unit will be added to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry. You will you receive a “Short-Term Residential Rental” certificate by mail, which contains your assigned Registration Number. This registration number must be included at the top of all short-term rental listings’ descriptions (online or otherwise). We recommend that you place this certificate in plain view within your unit.

What can I do and not do once I have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number?
Once you have obtained a Short-Term Residential Rental Registration Number, you may use your residential unit as a short-term residential rental without violating Administrative Code Chapter 41A or the Planning Code  under the following conditions:

  • You may rent the residential unit (in all or a portion) while you are not present for a maximum of 90 nights per calendar year.
  • You may rent a portion of the residential unit while you are present for an unlimited number of nights per year.
  • You may advertise your residential unit on any and all hosting platforms under the condition that you list your registration number at the top of all listings’ descriptions.

What you may not do with your Primary Residence registered as a Short-Term Residential Rental:

  • You may not rent your residential unit or a portion thereof for more than 90 nights per calendar year while you are not also present during the time of the guests’ stay.
  • You may not rent illegal residential units or unpermitted spaces associated with your property.
  • If you are a tenant, you may not make more than your monthly rent from your short-term rental fees charged to guests.

Due to the expected volume of requests and inquiries related to this matter, please continue to check back on our website for the latest news and updates pertaining to the Short-Term Residential Rental Registry.