Post by High Priestess on Nov 8, 2016 15:07:58 GMT
Here's a bit of news I'm very happy to report...it isn't only Airbnb doing the suing of cities over their excessively restrictive short term rental regulations.
The new Chicago STR ordinance goes way too far, according to Keep Chicago Livable, a non-profit formed by homeowners who oppose the regulations. In a 73-page lawsuit, the group argues that the ordinance “violates the constitutional rights of Chicagoans to speak and communicate freely and anonymously on the internet, to use their own property, to have privacy, and to not be subject to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the laws.”
I applaud these homeowners standing up for their liberty and freedom and property rights.
Post by High Priestess on Dec 11, 2016 15:34:37 GMT
Among other things this onerous Chicago law requiresor involves:
(1) That hosts pay an additional 4% house sharing tax, over and above the existing "hotel tax" of 4.5% in the city. In other words, guests would pay almost twice as much "hotel tax" to stay with an Airbnb host, as they would pay to stay in a hotel room.
(2)"...a woman who prefers to host only female Airbnb guests will now be in violation of the Chicago Human Rights ordinance if she elects to register as a “shared housing unit,” and even if she rents to a man, she would also be in violation of this provision if she refuses to let this man sleep in her bed or enter into her bedroom or her private bathroom (“full use of such public accommodation”)"
(3)“Maintenance of Records – each registered host must keep, for 3 years, records of all guests, including (i) name, (ii) contact information, (iii) signature and (iv) dates of accommodation. Each host is also required to make these registry records available for inspection to “any authorized city official … upon request.”
Judge Ellis appeared to hint the property owners could find more success in their arguments against the “maximum caps” provision of the ordinance, which limits the number of properties in certain buildings that can be listed on home-sharing sites. But the judge said, to date, the home sharers had not yet presented any arguments to persuade her that they would prevail on that point, either.
“Plaintiffs’ challenge fails at this stage because they have not provided the Court with an explanation for why the maximum caps provision is vague in all of its applications,” the judge said. “Instead, they themselves make only vague references to the simplicity of the argument and how it needs no further explanation. But such a conclusory explanation does not suffice to carry Plaintiffs’ burden of demonstrating likelihood of success on the due process claim.”