Vote on Sharing Economy

21

@ChadV Do the following additions take things in the direction that you’re looking for? I think you’re right. It was definitely missing something about what new regulations might do. It’s hard to keep the resolution short and include everything that should be included though.

Ride Sharing Resolution:

Friends of Austin Neighborhoods supports ride sharing. Ride sharing is important to Austin families by allowing them to make additional money to help them afford their increasing rents, property taxes, and costs of living. Ride sharing increases public safety by providing alternative transportation that helps prevent drunk driving.

Our neighborhoods can be complete communities, with families and people of all ages and socio-economic backgrounds, and with a variety of employment, goods, services, and transit accessible to all residents.

Additional regulations can discourage Austinites from becoming drivers, which reduces their yearly income and their economic mobility. New regulations should not place additional burdens on drivers. Please support fair and reasonable ride sharing regulations.

Home Sharing Resolution:

Friends of Austin Neighborhoods supports abundant and diverse housing in Austin; including temporary housing options. All short term rental types benefit our neighborhoods by providing a convenient place for Austinites to stay in their own neighborhoods during remodels or between houses or between leases, allows temporary housing for new Austinites relocating to Austin, provides housing for visiting families, provides local businesses temporary housing for their employees that work near our neighborhoods, provides temporary housing for flood and fire victims, while allowing homeowners the ability to make additional income in order to help pay their increasing property taxes so they can continue to live in the Austin homes that they love.

Austin neighborhoods must continually evolve with the changing needs of the City, and we recognize such natural change presents opportunities to improve our neighborhoods. Accordingly, we support the kinds of changes that will enhance the affordability, inclusivity, connectivity, mobility, and quality of life in our neighborhoods.

Additional regulations should not negatively impact good short term rental owners. Additional regulations can harm Austinites that want to comply with local ordinances or discourage them from getting a license. Short term rental regulations should be easy to follow and it should be easy to get and maintain a license to ensure the greatest compliance. Please support fair and reasonable short term rental regulations.

Please Oppose:

  • Bans on homeowners/renters for any short term rental type
  • Distance requirements that preemptively ban good homeowners/renters from short term renting their home based on the location of other short term rentals
  • Requirements for random and mandatory inspections of people’s homes without reason or cause
  • Reduced occupancy limits based on property/site instead of being based on dwelling/license
  • Allowing eyewitness accounts to be used as evidence in administrative hearings for violations, which may encourage abuse by activists against good short term rental owners
  • Requiring conditional use permits, board of adjustments approval, or neighborhood association approval to get or keep a license
  • Increasing license fees that may make it cost prohibitive to get and maintain a license
  • Requiring a guest registry that may violate the privacy of guests and owners
  • Any other requirement that makes it harder to receive and maintain a license for good owners
3 Likes
22

Those added clarifying sentences are certainly an improvement. If only every law had a binding statement of purpose attached to it!

If I wrote these resolutions, I would openly speak of the taxi and hotel industries which are likely behind what are essentially proxy wars to prop up their antiquated business plans with new laws blocking progress. As phrased, these resolutions maintain the narrative they favor which keeps them behind a smoke screen and encourages the citizens to do their fighting for them. Grass-roots citizen movement to protect their charming neighborhoods, indeed. It’s all too easy to turn the citizens against each other, to hand over civil rights to force others to stop living differently.

I would also point out that the City seems eager to give these kinds of issues lots of screen time when perhaps there are far more important things that need all that attention which they’re happy to distract us from. Insert list here. Heck, I just got a whole mess of notices for Public Hearings, and most of them lacked a proper description, only alluding to “relating to a thing… like, such as…”.

1 Like
23

This sounds somewhat better to me. I agree that we need remedies based in reality.

1 Like
24

I think it’s great that FAN is weighing in on these issues. My feeling on most issues is if something isn’t hurting anyone, then people should be allowed to do what they want. People want to use TNCs and STRs, and the supply is going to follow this demand. I’ve never used a TNC, but when speaking with people who have, it leads me to believe that they’re not going anywhere. People love them, and it’s the taxi companies that are against them. Same for STRs, once someone stays in a STR, they start staying in far fewer hotels.

I’m fine with the STR and TNC positions becoming separated, but for me my support of both comes from the same place. I like both of the resolutions.

2 Likes
25

@Greg_Cribbs and if something is hurting someone, then the cause needs to be prudently identified, and the response should demonstrably address it. Too much political activity seems to consist of crises being exploited for unrelated objectives.

1 Like
26

@Pete_Gilcrease if I’m understanding correctly, you’re suggesting including a link to the resolution accompanying any email notice of a vote, yes? I think this would be good practice. Might also be good to include a link to the forum discussion, as applicable. The double-win would be getting more eyes on (and hopefully participation in) the forums.

1 Like
27

@brwittstruck I believe that’s one of the things that people wanted when sending out the votes was the forum link where the discussion is. I think we may have done that last time though? Yeah, I was thinking it might be a good idea to include the forum link where the resolutions are discussed when sending out emails to anyone about the results. Exactly, I think it would be a great way to show that our forums are available and show our process and might even encourage people to participate in the forums more. It’d be great to get the city council to start looking at our forums and participating - maybe they would post their newsletters here and ask for volunteers when something is needed in their districts, etc?

2 Likes
28

I encourage having FAN vote on supporting a “sharing economy”. It is not new to share your car to give a friend, relative, neighbor a ride to the airport, or share housing with visitors, or many other ways of sharing assets that were the norm prior to our “recent” descent into a consumption based economy (where everyone has one of everything, so needs a big house to store it & a long commute to get home to all that stuff). What is new is how easily one can share with strangers - so some safeguards seem reasonable to protect both sides.

Given the affordability, sustainability, community, & even mobility implications of increased “sharing”, an argument can be made that it is extremely complimentary with FAN’s mission statement. Given the importance of the high level issue, I personally would prefer we not get too deep into the weeds on providers and whatever battles they are having this month with individuals or regulations, or be very selective if we go there…

29

I would be comfortable having a broad and deep conversation about the sharing economy and how to and what to advocate for. Then share our vision.
I think advocacy should hinge around public transit not private. I think advocacy for the right of property owners to choose strategies to enhance their ability to benefit from their property without onerous regulation. I think a conversation that shines a light on the fact that regulation has become the default tool for control and how it increases our costs, is highly ineffective, and tramples on the rights of property owners and renters alike. All are long conversations. All require time and thought and argument. Proposing a resolution gets the cart before the horse. A resolution should be the end of the conversation not the beginning.

Larry

30

Funny how John Raulston Saul seems to be able to say clearly and simply what I am clumsily trying to say.
"Stop the talk, we’re going to decide, yes or no. At this point the citizen’s role is to wave one flag or the other and cheer for one side of the simple question or the other. In other words, we’re reduced to children."
Larry

31

Hopefully a broader statement on support for a sharing economy can be developed and adopted as part of FAN’s vision. Agreed, ideally we would have that before considering the two resolutions proposed, but it appears the clock will not allow time for “ideal” given related upcoming Council votes, so I am fine with moving forward & taking a poll on the resolutions. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good…

32

“A resolution should be the end of the conversation not the beginning.” @Larry_Sunderland

I like how this conversation is steering away from “resolution” and toward “statement of support”. The latter is a far more nuanced discussion and opens the door for us to provide not only support, but also levels of support including voices that are not necessarily in full support.

FAN’s purpose is to be an inclusive voice of neighborhoods. To this end, it makes little sense (or none at all) for the group to take hard-line votes on complex issues when instead we should be fostering multiple viewpoints and allowing them to be shared together coherently with a broader audience.

I like this direction. The silencing of minority opinion through voting is the sort of ANC stuff we’re trying to combat.
B

33

I like the idea of the forums to flush out specific suggestions/recommendations. I think they’d probably carry more weight a lot of the times instead of just a general level of support for something. We could always vote on a general resolution and then use that for the board or membership to come up with the detailed suggestions, but people might rather vote on the suggestions themselves. I think the vote on ADUs (http://www.atxfriends.org/votes/) was a good example where we provided specific suggestions and it’s great to see those suggestions pass council.

34

16 posts were split to a new topic: Ridesharing Resolution

47

All,

Here is a revamped draft of a resolution supporting sensible regulations on short-term rentals (STRs) and opposing STR restrictions that would impair progress towards a more affordable Austin.

Friends of Austin Neighborhoods (FAN) supports sensible regulations on short-term rentals and opposes restrictions that would impair progress towards a more affordable Austin.

Allowing responsible owners to rent their homes for short durations benefits our neighbors and our city by providing:

  1. A convenient and affordable place for Austinites to stay in their own neighborhoods during remodels and between houses and leases.
  2. Temporary housing for visiting family members, for newcomers relocating to Austin, and for flood and fire victims.
  3. A way for local businesses to house traveling employees working in or near our neighborhoods.
  4. Income to owners whose homes or accessory dwellings might otherwise sit idle for portions of the year.

We are most concerned that limiting owners’ ability to use their homes as short-term rentals will ultimately slow the growth of our overall housing supply. When homeowners know they cannot, if they wish, rent their homes for short durations, some of them will feel less comfortable building or purchasing new homes, reducing the incentive to add homes to Austin’s housing stock.

Moreover, for some homeowners, the additional income and flexibility STRs provide may be the only affordable option that enables them to continue to live in Austin.

To maximize compliance, STR regulations should be easy to follow, and it should be straightforward to acquire and maintain a license. Please oppose:

  1. Outright bans on, or phasing out of, short-term rentals of any type.
  2. Distance requirements that prohibit short-term rentals of homes in close proximity to other short term rentals.
  3. Intrusive inspections of people’s homes without cause.
  4. Reduced occupancy limits based on property or site instead of being based on dwelling or license.
  5. Allowing evidence not verifiable by a City of Austin employee to be used when evaluating potential violations of short-term rental regulations.
  6. Requiring conditional use permits, board of adjustments approval, or neighborhood association approval to acquire or keep a license.
  7. Excessive license fees that render it cost prohibitive to get and maintain a license.
  8. Requiring a guest registry that violates the privacy of guests and owners.
  9. Any other requirements that unduly hinder responsible owners’ ability receive and maintain STR licenses.

Comments, suggestions, and further discussion are encouraged. A board member may choose to sponsor the resolution and bring it to a vote of the full membership.

Note: the process for a policy resolution calls for board member to “sponsor” it, an opportunity for the board to object solely on the grounds of frivolity or inconsistency with the FAN vision, an open and transparent vetting here in this forum, a vote of the membership, and the approval of a supermajority of voting members before FAN will represent it as a position of the organization. (The numeric vote tallies will always be reported on the website.)

1 Like
48

This is also a much better version of the resolution. It looks great to me.

49

I appreciate the great amount of work that has gone into crafting this resolution; however, I will be voting against it and I would like to share my reasoning in this public forum.

I do not support this resolution because:

  1. It is one-sided; while the resolution correctly identifies valid reasons why STRs provide housing services, it does not sufficiently acknowledge also valid concerns against STRs.

  2. It goes too far, in that the resolution does not acknowledge a functional difference between Type 1 and Type 2 STRs (the latter of which, in my opinion, should be subject to more oversight).

  3. This is not, in my opinion, a FAN issue. Yes, we can tie this to the FAN Vision, but if we keep leading with political, divisive issues then the tail is wagging the dog. Issues should support the FAN Vision, not the other way around.

Respectfully,
Brendan

50

I think STRs, especially Type 2 STRs, support the FAN vision of welcoming new residents and encouraging people to live in our neighborhoods. Type 2 STRs are the only STR option that can provide longer term stays for Austin residents within our neighborhoods. Type 1s typically are only rented during festivals or for short periods of time and so don’t allow for longer term housing. I wouldn’t be living in Hyde Park if my wife and I wouldn’t have stayed in an STR here and liked the neighborhood so much, so I definitely see them as a way to encourage people to live in our neighborhoods from my own personal experiences. It’s the reason why we wanted to own an STR so we could provide others that same opportunity to experience the neighborhood before deciding were they wanted to live. When we moved to Austin our only options were to stay in a motel/hotel along I-35 or to stay in a Type 2 STR within a neighborhood. We were able to stay in two different neighborhoods, one in south Austin around South Congress for 2 months and one in central Austin for 1 month. That allowed us to experience the different areas before making the big decision of where we wanted to purchase a home. South Congress seemed a little too busy for us and we decided that a quieter neighborhood like Hyde Park was what we were looking for. I’ve heard the same or similar stories countless times from people moving to Austin.

I’ve had a lot people stay in my STRs and then move into the neighborhood or close by. One of my current tenants has been in one of my STRs for about 8 months now while he works here and looks for a home in the neighborhood or nearby neighborhood. Another one of my now good friends, an older couple, leased a long term home in North Loop after staying in my STR and seeing that they wanted to live in the area. Also, a great couple that now lives in North University and I regularly see at Shipe Park lived in my STR for several months after moving here from Hawaii while finding a home. It’s also common for people that live in Hyde Park or surrounding neighborhoods to use my STRs to stay in while they remodel their homes, during emergencies, before or after buying a home, or as a sublet between leases. There are really no other options for these types of shorter long term stays that provide a furnished rental. Type 2 STRs are housing supply, they are just temporary housing for Austinites. I think it could be also be argued that students could be considered temporary residents by many people. We should be welcoming people whether they stay for 1 month or 12 months.

Issues that are coming before the city council should be considered by FAN in order for our voice to be heard. I’m sure almost everything we do someone will consider divisive or controversial, otherwise, we wouldn’t need to take a position on something.

51

Viewpoint: Austin on verge of dealing a big blow to sharing economy, and this has nothing to do with Uber

Jin Lee

For the past three years, Austinites have enjoyed all the inherent freedoms of home ownership. But some of those freedoms could vanish if the Austin City Council passes City Code 25 on Thursday.

In 2013, Austin led the state, and the nation, in adopting sensible short-term rental regulations. This allowed homeowners across the city to offer short-term rentals to visitors and Austinites. Unfortunately, the City Code 25 ordinance would neuter the rights of homeownership while offering no real benefits to the city.

Consider, for example, the Austinite who doesn’t want to stay in Austin for South By Southwest or the rodeo. Short-term rental services allow these residents to escape by sharing their homes and using that revenue for a trip out of town. Or consider the Central Texan living in Bartlett who wants to spend a night downtown.

During a December City Council meeting, a retired Austinite explained how she and her husband bought their Austin home because of the opportunity for home-sharing. She extolled the reasonableness of the existing ordinance and explained how home-sharing makes living in Austin affordable.

Short-term rental services provide income and access to hundreds of Austin citizens. City Code 25 would wipe out all of these benefits that so many homeowners and renters have grown to enjoy.

Under Austin’s forward-thinking 2013 short-term rental ordinance, Austin became the nation’s leader in short-term rental compliance — with an estimated 72 percent of short-term rental owners and managers registering with the City and less than 1 percent of them having any nuisance complaints. This means safe and secure rental environments and additional tax revenue for the city — the type of benefits City Code 25 seeks to revoke.

Often complaints about short-term rental services come in the form of anecdotal stories about public nuisances. But outlawing short-term rental services is not the answer. Like any nuisance issue, whether caused by the property owner, their friend staying over, or short-term rental visitors, existing Austin laws address the problem.

It’s surprising that City Code 25 comes at a time when advances in technology have allowed homeowners to more easily connect with visitors and local residents looking for alternative accommodations. It’s even more surprising this is coming from one of nation’s leading tech centers.

Instead of issuing this edict, Austin City Council should embrace this economic opportunity — like it did in 2013 — by working with industry stakeholders to establish a reasonable framework for regulating short-term rental activity and enforce existing regulations so that all may benefit.

The Council should remember when it supported innovation and property-owners’ rights. The Council should open the door to short-term rentals, not lock Austinites out of the market.

Carl Szabo is policy counsel for NetChoice, a trade association of eCommerce businesses and online consumers, all of whom share the goal of promoting convenience, choice and commerce on the Internet.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/techflash/2016/01/viewpoint-austin-on-verge-of-dealing-a-big-blow-to.html?ana=e_aus_rdup&s=newsletter&ed=2016-01-26&u=tyeEttnDbYSSkp8czBtOPcZYyrS&t=1453825131

1 Like
52

Forum on City of Austin’s Proposition 1 (So-called Uber/Lyft Ordinance)

Sunday, April 10
2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin
4700 Grover Avenue
Austin TX 78756

The League of Women Voters of the Austin Area will sponsor a
forum and discussion on the upcoming May 7th ballot measure which will address rules for Transportation Network Companies (TNC). This is the only item on the ballot for most City of Austin residents. (Click here for more information about the May 7th election in Travis County, including a sample ballot.)

Panelists will be:
Council Member Ellen Troxclair, District 8
Council Member Delia Garza, District 2
Caroline Joiner, Executive Director, TechNet Austin
Representing RidesharingWorks.org
Laura Morrison, Former Council Member
Representing OurCityOurChoiceOurSafety.org

We invite the public to become informed voters about an important issue for the City of Austin.

For more information about the May 7th election, Proposition 1, and the ordinances affected by this proposition, please visit our website: www.LWVaustin.org

For more information contact Frances McIntyre at 512-451-1551 or mcintyre.frances@gmail.com

1 Like