#TXLEGE: Short Term Rental bills move forward in both chambers

"A ruler who lacks understanding is a great oppressor,
But he who hates covetousness will prolong his days."
Proverbs 28:16

[Note: The House hearing can be viewed here; the STR bill begins about 3ish hours into the broadcast and our testimony is two hours after the bill discussion began.]

Big news out of the legislature on short term rentals; first up, the Senate voted their bill out of the full chamber today:

A Senate bill that would limit local government control of short-term home rentals in Texas passed out of the upper chamber Tuesday in a 21-9 vote.

Under Senate Bill 451 by state Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, Texas cities would be prevented from banning short-term rentals and their ability to write ordinances restricting the practice would be narrowed. Austin, San Antonio and Fort Worth are among the cities that have enacted such restrictions.

....

Among local policies that would be limited in scope by Hancock's bill: a Fort Worth regulation that requires property owners to obtain a bed-and-breakfast permit only available to homes built before 1993 and an ordinance in Austin that has capped the number of short-term rentals with no live-in owners.

Meanwhile, the House just wrapped up hearing their companion bill; to be honest, the House hearing was more of what anyone who's been following this debate has come to expect.

Supporters of the bill shared stories of small scale entrepreneurship and the benefits to their families and communities that resulted.  The attacks on their property rights threatened those accomplishments.  After being attacked by cities like Austin and Ft. Worth, they're coming to the legislature for help.

Mayor Adler waiting to testify

Mayor Adler testified against the bill and attempted to obfuscate the difference between owner occupied and owner offsite short term rentals.  While only the latter are fully banned, Austin's ordinance imposes many of the same requirements on owner occupied units.  For example, the limitations over how many people can be present on the property applies regardless.  Of course, Adler knows this and he was attempting misdirection with the community.  In addition to his suggestion to the Mayor that Austin eliminate zoning entirely, we enjoyed watching Representative Gary Elkins school the Mayor on property rights.

Mayor Adler was joined in opposition by hotel industry trade associations, taxpayer funded lobbyists, and 'urban planning' professionals.  There were also a couple of local Austin homeowners who shared horror stories about being next to bad STR properties.  While we understand the awfulness of the situation they faced, that doesn't change the fact that the issues with which they dealt could have been addressed by enforcing the noise/nuisance ordinances the city already had on the books.

We testified about the frightening enforcement powers the City of Austin claimed for itself out of thin air.  The Austin STR ordinance empowers the city code department to perform warantless searches on any property they suspect of being a type-2 STR at any time with no warning.  Note that we didn't say the police department has this authority (which we also wouldn't support, but for which we could see a justification)...we said the code department.  It doesn't take a genius to see how this this type of authority could grow into something really dangerous.  Likewise, in a committee with a Democrat chair (Carol Alvarado), it seemed prudent to mention that in the wrong hands this type of authority could be used in a racially discriminatory way.

Bottom Line: We'll have to see what happens, but these bills are far enough in the process that there's still time.

-----

#TXLEGE: House considers limiting "historical" zoning designations....

Former Austin Historic Landmark Commission member Arif Panj testifies

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?"
Matthew 20:15

[Note: HB 3418 is the final bill under consideration here; our testimony can be found at the 2:44:20 mark.]

[Note II: Learn more about the history of this issue in Austin here and here and here.]

This afternoon, the Texas House committee on Urban Affairs heard HB 3418 (Elkins).  Elkins' bill would create objective criteria for "historic" designations and require a 75% super-majority requirement for a city council to zone something historic against the property owners will.  Abuses of historic designations to inhibit housing construction is a problem that has been growing in recent years in Austin that can spread statewide if the legislature doesn't nip it in the bud.

An important note: Rep. Elkins' bill only pertains to historical designations that are done against the property owners will.  This bill has no impact on historic zoning when the property owner is in agreement.  This bill only becomes relevant when a city (usually at the behest of a politically powerful neighborhood association)

One central Austin home-builder testified that the historic designation process delayed a project upon which he was working for nine months and added an additional $300k to the cost.  That translated to an additional $10,000 per house for the final buyer.  How many people will no longer be able to afford the house with the additional $10,000?!?

Former state rep Burt Solomons testified that neighborhood associations try to exhaust property owners by dragging out the time and expense involved in these processes.  Another Austin resident testified that the City refused to allow tearing down a house that had been condemned as uninhabitable because it was zoned historic.  We testified that the abuses are well documented and that the bill eliminates uncertainty (our one regret is that we neglected to mention the threat this poses to other cities if Austin is allowed to get away with it).

The highlight of the afternoon was the testimony of former Austin historic landmark commission member Arif Panju.  Arif testified that in his two years on the historic landmark commission, he only saw "7 or 8" cases come before the commission where the property owner was in agreement with the designation.  Likewise, Arif stated that historical zoning is being used to "keep people out" of neighborhood rather than any legitimate purpose.

As to the opponents: They were primarily bureaucrats from various urban "preservation" offices around the state.  They said about what you would expect them to say about how there's no problem with anything they're doing and that we just don't understand the issue.  Still, a couple remarks do stand out.  One gentleman who used to work with the state preservation board opposed the bill and called for more funding for "training."  Another opponent claimed there are 'trade-offs" involving private property rights when you move into an urban area.

Bottom Line: The bill was left pending, and a substitute is working its way through lege council, but it's a pleasant surprise to see the legislature take up this issue.

-----