I'm coming into St. Louis for a party on July 31 and I am looking for a loft, condo, or house to rent for 2 to 3 nights.
I've checked craigslist.org, vacationrentals.com, vrbo.com and homeaway.com and I have found a couple properties but I've not found an appropriate property.
I'm ready for a full ban on short-term rentals where people don't live in them. Airbnb has had an awful impact on many neighborhoods in the City and doesn't stimulate the local economy as far as I'm concerned. St. Louisans could rent the units as apartments and tourists could stay at hotels, cheap travelers could rent rooms at the remaining short-term room rentals in people's homes.
Seems like the solution would be just to apply the current hotel tax to all short term rentals without permanent residents and make it the responsibility for the hosting website, AirBnB or whomever, to collect and remit the additional taxes. Seems reasonable that Hotels should get to compete on equal footing and it would tamp down the growth of short-term rentals. Also probably pass a rule that no multi-unit building can have a majority of units as short-term rentals because otherwise it would be a defacto hotel which violates zoning.
Undercutting the sort-term rental market would probably have a measurable effect of market value for properties in the central corridor. Might not be a bad thing, unless you own a property.
"Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in the City of St. Louis, MO will pay the following tax as part of their reservation:
Hote/Motel Room Sales Tax: 3.5% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website.
Convention and Tourism Tax: 3.75% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website."
Airbnb provides options in much of South City where there are no hotels at all so I don't think we need to get rid of it all together, though it may be a good idea to take a look at capping the number per nieghborhood or something like that.
"Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in the City of St. Louis, MO will pay the following tax as part of their reservation:
Hote/Motel Room Sales Tax: 3.5% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website.
Convention and Tourism Tax: 3.75% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website."
I didn't realize they were paying taxes. Why would we want to ban AirBnBs then. They probably have more local impact than resident on a daily per capita per day basis because they are eating out every meal, and shopping locally. Does AirBnB collect it and send the city a check?
Honestly seems like most problems could be addressed through HOA rules in problematic buildings. The only problem comes when short-term rentals are the majority of units in a particular building, and maybe thats worth revisiting.
^ I have a VRBO rental (I would assume AirBnB is the same) in a different state and, yes, they automatically charge and remit state and county taxes on my transient rentals.
"Guests who book Airbnb listings that are located in the City of St. Louis, MO will pay the following tax as part of their reservation:
Hote/Motel Room Sales Tax: 3.5% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website.
Convention and Tourism Tax: 3.75% of the listing price including any cleaning fees, for reservations 31 nights or shorter. For detailed information, please visit the St. Louis Hotel/Motel Room Tax website."
I didn't realize they were paying taxes. Why would we want to ban AirBnBs then. They probably have more local impact than resident on a daily per capita per day basis because they are eating out every meal, and shopping locally. Does AirBnB collect it and send the city a check?
Honestly seems like most problems could be addressed through HOA rules in problematic buildings. The only problem comes when short-term rentals are the majority of units in a particular building, and maybe thats worth revisiting.
Even a small number of short-term rentals can cause issues for residents in a building because management is not on-site 24/7. In a hotel the front desk can address issues at any time quickly. In an apartment/condo building they are used to addressing issues in hours or days, which is fine for long-term residents, but unacceptable when the short-term rental next door is throwing a rowdy party or otherwise causing a nuisance, as has happened multiple times and is a main complaint people have with being neighbors to an AirBnB. Response could be even slower if the unit is controlled by a third party rather than building management. HOA rules only work if residents can control the board. This isn't always the case, for example in the Eli Walker lofts where CityWide bought a controlling share of the units so that other owners/residents are powerless to institute new rules or enforce existing ones. In apartment buildings where tenants are all renting it would be up to the landlord and many do not have a good track record when it comes to policing short term rentals. It only takes a couple badly run short term rentals to cause big problems for a lot of people in a short amount of time.
Ely Walker is a mostly special case. I would argue any HOA where the majority share is owned by a single entity is a problem (this has to be pretty rare). If they were all being leased as long term rentals you could see some of the same problems.
If loud parties is a problem just call the cops and pressure politicians/police/prosecutors to enforce ordinances against disturbing the peace. Vote em out if they don't. They should stiffen fines, and make sure fines go to owner and renter. Maybe some kind of 3 strikes rule. Seems like not a reason to ban it entirely. There are intermediate steps.
1. The proliferation of Airbnb reduces the supply of apartments available to rent. In the process of getting those Airbnbs into place, the existing tenants are evicted. I think we all agree that population decline is STL's biggest problem, and Airbnb absolutely makes that worse.
2. It's jarring and unpleasant for your neighbor to be replaced with a short-term rental. Whether that's in an apartment complex or just your next door neighbor's house, it makes the quality of life of the City worse. There's a reason why hotels exist and need to be zoned that way.
Finally, i don't get the point about how Airbnb guests spend more than long-term tenants do. Like yeah they will often eat out, but typically Airbnbs are not rented all the time (often only on weekends). And like, if there was no Airbnb then they would just stay at a hotel. How the hell is that generating more economic activity?
I can see both sides of this debate. Over 7 years ago, my long-term tenant in the house I owned next door to my residence notified me he was relocating out of state. After deciding to sell both houses within a year and move to another neighborhood in STL, I had ethical concerns about signing a new long-term tenant, only to sell the house from under them 12 months later.
Airbnb was still fledgling around that time, but it was the perfect option for me to continue receiving income, while having the flexibility to block out days to do repairs in anticipation of the upcoming sale. I was surprised at the variety of guests who booked it--not just tourists and visitors as I expected, but resident doctors from S. America here for fellowships, actors traveling with stage productions, traveling nurses, patients coming in for major, lengthy medical treatments at Barnes/Siteman... They all said the same thing: hotels are depressing, and they preferred to stay in a home (of their own, not shared) for their 3/6/12 weeks in town. Only short-term rentals fit this need. I share this sentiment, and have only stayed in maybe 2 hotels due to necessity or lack of Airbnb option in the last 7 years.
I know about the STR empires taking over neighborhoods, and know people who have been negatively impacted by them. I hope there is a happy compromise somewhere in between a ban and a free-for-all. I personally would hate it if that option were eliminated/drastically limited for my own travels. And I know a few folks who have had a chance at homeownership due to their ability to defray some costs by renting out a basement suite or extra room. It's a slippery slope...
1. The proliferation of Airbnb reduces the supply of apartments available to rent. In the process of getting those Airbnbs into place, the existing tenants are evicted. I think we all agree that population decline is STL's biggest problem, and Airbnb absolutely makes that worse.
2. It's jarring and unpleasant for your neighbor to be replaced with a short-term rental. Whether that's in an apartment complex or just your next door neighbor's house, it makes the quality of life of the City worse. There's a reason why hotels exist and need to be zoned that way.
Finally, i don't get the point about how Airbnb guests spend more than long-term tenants do. Like yeah they will often eat out, but typically Airbnbs are not rented all the time (often only on weekends). And like, if there was no Airbnb then they would just stay at a hotel. How the hell is that generating more economic activity?
1. The proliferation of Airbnb reduces the supply of apartments available to rent. In the process of getting those Airbnbs into place, the existing tenants are evicted. I think we all agree that population decline is STL's biggest problem, and Airbnb absolutely makes that worse.
2. It's jarring and unpleasant for your neighbor to be replaced with a short-term rental. Whether that's in an apartment complex or just your next door neighbor's house, it makes the quality of life of the City worse. There's a reason why hotels exist and need to be zoned that way.
Finally, i don't get the point about how Airbnb guests spend more than long-term tenants do. Like yeah they will often eat out, but typically Airbnbs are not rented all the time (often only on weekends). And like, if there was no Airbnb then they would just stay at a hotel. How the hell is that generating more economic activity?
I have no idea how you determined #1 to be true. I think you could clearly make the case that the problem in STL of population decline is led by disinvestment, not by AirBNB properties. I'd personally prefer more investment in St Louis.
I dont know why we should be telling people what they can & cant do inside their own house. Would adding an apartment over my garage and renting it out via AirBNB be banned? How come you get to tell me what to do with my property? What if i ran my business out of there instead of my office, would that be allowed?
I have no idea how you can argue that the same number of people live in an airbnb (0) that live in an apartment (1). The census is not going to count a tourist as a resident, and a tourist is not going to pay earnings tax. Also what kind of investment does Airbnb even make? It's just repurposing housing for STL City residents in favor of tourists. That doesn't increase the tax rolls or number of businesses here.
To your questions, 1) In my kingdom, yes. 2) There are in fact rules on what you can to your house, that already exist. Like if you live in a historic home you can't tear it down without going to the preservation board. You can't run a preschool out of your home. You can't keep a cow in your backyard. The world isn't as libertarian as you think it is. 3) Yes you can have a home office, in fact many people work from home.
I have no idea how you can argue that the same number of people live in an airbnb (0) that live in an apartment (1). The census is not going to count a tourist as a resident, and a tourist is not going to pay earnings tax. Also what kind of investment does Airbnb even make? It's just repurposing housing for STL City residents in favor of tourists. That doesn't increase the tax rolls or number of businesses here.
To your questions, 1) In my kingdom, yes. 2) There are in fact rules on what you can to your house, that already exist. Like if you live in a historic home you can't tear it down without going to the preservation board. You can't run a preschool out of your home. You can't keep a cow in your backyard. The world isn't as libertarian as you think it is. 3) Yes you can have a home office, in fact many people work from home.
St. Louis's population decline was by far most significant before the advent of AirBNB. The city didn't go from 821k to 325k because of AirBNB. My cousin rents out the 2nd side of the duplex he owns through AirBNB. A long term renter would be less income for him to pay off his house. I don't know why you get to tell him he has to now figure out how to afford more of his mortgage payment than he normally does.
If Air BNB can increase investment in any neighborhood in this city, I think its a positive. I haven't yet found a neighborhood that couldn't use more housing and investment into better real estate. And increasing revenue opportunities for developers certainly does benefit the math of building new housing.
Sounds like the main source of the problem with these are units bought for the sole purpose of short term rentals. That said, a person renting out his own unit can also be a source of problems if not well managed.
The city can (and in some cases already does!) 100% dictate what you can and can't do with your own property. Especially if what you do impacts your neighbors or the neighborhood in a negative way. Lots of laws already on the books dictate appropriate uses of a property. I don't think the city needs to ban STRs entirely, but some modification to regulations concerning them does make sense.
Perhaps something could be written allowing more liberties for units owned by a person, and units owned by an LLC or business could be subject to additional requirements? Those additional requirements could potentially also be triggered if a building reaches a certain percentage of units used for STRs?
Sounds like the main source of the problem with these are units bought for the sole purpose of short term rentals. That said, a person renting out his own unit can also be a source of problems if not well managed.
The city can (and in some cases already does!) 100% dictate what you can and can't do with your own property. Especially if what you do impacts your neighbors or the neighborhood in a negative way. Lots of laws already on the books dictate appropriate uses of a property. I don't think the city needs to ban STRs entirely, but some modification to regulations concerning them does make sense.
Perhaps something could be written allowing more liberties for units owned by a person, and units owned by an LLC or business could be subject to additional requirements? Those additional requirements could potentially also be triggered if a building reaches a certain percentage of units used for STRs?
-RBB
My general point of view - we should spend time figuring out how to build more houses and more businesses in STL to bring more people here - not spend time trying to restrict ones that are already here.
The city restricts what my lot size is, how many parking spots I have if I'm a business, my front, side and rear! setbacks, if my house is 2 or 3 stories, etc. All examples of possibilities of me "hurting my neighborhood in a negative way" that actually just hurt the city by letting less people invest & live here. We should try to get rid of most of these things, not try to add to them.
Sounds like the main source of the problem with these are units bought for the sole purpose of short term rentals. That said, a person renting out his own unit can also be a source of problems if not well managed.
The city can (and in some cases already does!) 100% dictate what you can and can't do with your own property. Especially if what you do impacts your neighbors or the neighborhood in a negative way. Lots of laws already on the books dictate appropriate uses of a property. I don't think the city needs to ban STRs entirely, but some modification to regulations concerning them does make sense.
Perhaps something could be written allowing more liberties for units owned by a person, and units owned by an LLC or business could be subject to additional requirements? Those additional requirements could potentially also be triggered if a building reaches a certain percentage of units used for STRs?
-RBB
My general point of view - we should spend time figuring out how to build more houses and more businesses in STL to bring more people here - not spend time trying to restrict ones that are already here.
The city restricts what my lot size is, how many parking spots I have if I'm a business, my front, side and rear! setbacks, if my house is 2 or 3 stories, etc. All examples of possibilities of me "hurting my neighborhood in a negative way" that actually just hurt the city by letting less people invest & live here. We should try to get rid of most of these things, not try to add to them.
You know that level of nuance is the key, and I agree. That balance is one of the toughest parts to get correct.
But still, even your regulatory bad examples have very valid reasons for existing! Parking is a problem - some is likely necessary, but too much can have a very negative impact on the neighborhood. Setbacks and lot size limits have been put in place because how your building is built impacts your neighbors to a great degree. I've no issue at all with using those to ensure the character and consistency of a particular neighborhood is maintained.
Now, can those be overly restrictive? Yep! Again, nuance and balance are the key - and a process for approving variances when justified. I disagree that they should go away entirely.
The biggest problem with airbnb is when the owner doesn't live on site. The service started with the concept of people renting out their extra rooms or their residence when they're away and I don't think anyone really has a complaint about that sort of thing now. The issue is companies that own multiple properties solely for short term rentals and that are usually unresponsive and uncaring about their neighbors. This is especially the case for units in apartment buildings, living next to an unmonitored hotel room is not pleasant and people shouldn't be expected to deal with that. It's not hard to carve out an exception for owners renting out their own primary residence, nor should their existence stop the enactment of regulations or bans on unmonitored hotel rooms in otherwise residential buildings.
To me there is a lot of talking about how its a problem as a forgone conclusion. So to me there are a few anecdotal complaints I've seen here that are legit. Most can be addressed by basic enforcement of ordinances.
-loud party or other general nuisance behavior by renters. Solution: Enforce laws against public nuisances.
-owners poorly maintaining their property. Solution: Enforce laws regarding property maintenance.
-owners monopolizing rule making body to assure rules favor their interests at the expense of other residents in a community. Solution: I'm not sure you might have to move. sorry. Don't sell though. Turn your property into a STR. If they don't operate fairly & by the rules they set then sue.
If there are more I should consider feel free to reply with them.
Other complaints I've seen here but personally I consider a little harder to take seriously
-its just moving dollars around they would stay in a hotel if not here. I say: as far as I know hotels are at a fairly healthy capacity. This also keeps hotel prices down a bit which is nice in attracting people to layover in St. louis. More visitors overall but at a somewhat lower price point. Personally I'm inclined to make the tradeoff but I don't think its so simple. Could be persuaded with actual data but either way but i don't think this rises to the level of justifying general elimination of STRs.
-reduces number of units for rent and drives up prices for housing. I say: good creates economic incentive for investment.
-people over maintain their unit with trades there addressing emergency maintenance at irregular hours. I say: yeah if ac or plumbing go out it sould be addressed asap. Noises of city life. Stuff happens.
-longtime tenants moved out because i guess the building has a more profitable economic use. I say: it'll be ok. I doubt they were evicted since that requires crossing a significant legal hurdle. Their lease most likely just wasn't renewed. But either-way STRs are not usually being created at the very bottom of the housing scale so I'm sure these people were able to find new digs. Even if they were pushed onto the streets I don't think restricting STRs would be an effective way to address the needs of the unhoused.
-I don't get to see the same neighbors I'm used too seeing. And its jarring... I say: I am struggling to see why this feeling is OK in this context and not in so many other contexts.
-it doesn't help census numbers...? I say: ????
A lot of these arguments have parallels to anti-gentrification tropes. Neighborhoods are not static things if people are priced out of Soulard and Lafayette Square and CWE they can live in South City or North City. I have sympathy for the short-term pain it may cause but consider these lovely people can now contribute to another communities rehabilitation. Demand creates economic incentive to invest in renovations and build new housing. This is necessary pain to better the city.
Sounds like the main source of the problem with these are units bought for the sole purpose of short term rentals. That said, a person renting out his own unit can also be a source of problems if not well managed.
The city can (and in some cases already does!) 100% dictate what you can and can't do with your own property. Especially if what you do impacts your neighbors or the neighborhood in a negative way. Lots of laws already on the books dictate appropriate uses of a property. I don't think the city needs to ban STRs entirely, but some modification to regulations concerning them does make sense.
Perhaps something could be written allowing more liberties for units owned by a person, and units owned by an LLC or business could be subject to additional requirements? Those additional requirements could potentially also be triggered if a building reaches a certain percentage of units used for STRs?
-RBB
My general point of view - we should spend time figuring out how to build more houses and more businesses in STL to bring more people here - not spend time trying to restrict ones that are already here.
The city restricts what my lot size is, how many parking spots I have if I'm a business, my front, side and rear! setbacks, if my house is 2 or 3 stories, etc. All examples of possibilities of me "hurting my neighborhood in a negative way" that actually just hurt the city by letting less people invest & live here. We should try to get rid of most of these things, not try to add to them.
Everything you stated are important parts of a city urban fabric. Some of which (setbacks) are for health reasons such as to allow appropriate amounts of light into buildings etc. Neglecting to accept them or appropriately apply them will have snowballing negative affects.
Now if you can provide a better example maybe I can agree with your reasoning but the options you chose don’t help your cause.
I don't think it makes sense to conflate STR with zoning restrictions. Focus on what problems it actually generates. To my mind there are only a few legitimate ones and most are addressable without a full ban. SO do that.
Incidentally the way to address most of the issues that arise is through effective enforcement of code, zoning and nuisance restrictions.
