|
|
Post by lambada on Nov 8, 2016 15:42:06 GMT
I have some pretty bad news for SF hosts who got their STR permits, especially those who are renting an ‘entire apartment’. As we all know, many of us use this category on Airbnb for marketing purposes since they do not have a ‘private suite’ category. But apparently, this is viewed as a real entire unit by SF Planning, as if the hosts do not reside in that place. So this host that I know very well, just got her STR permit revoked a few days ago. No discussion, no alert, no calls. Just that – a letter of notification that her STR permit has been revoked! It looks like because she gave an actual number of days when her ‘entire apartment’ was rented, in her quarterly report. So my next alert: Do NOT report your actual number of days booked, especially the non-hosted. This is if you already have your STR. If you don't, do NOT apply! That host told everyone to apply, and I got mine because of her. Look what happened to her now!
The way I see it, is that once you apply/get your permit, the city will have all your info and they also now mandated the quarterly report to include the link to your listing(s). I won’t be surprised if they’ll start mandating hosts to their Airbnb reservations details as well. And what’s next, the 1099??
I’ve seen her unit set up, as in she rents the front part of her unit and she lives in the back part (separated by doors). So she doesn’t share common space with her guests, but it is still the same place. I have a similar set up, but I listed mine under ‘private room’.
|
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 8, 2016 16:02:41 GMT
Just goes to show the peril that folks may inadvertently put themselves in if they try to be good diligent upstanding citizens and follow all laws, and trust their government. They may find themselves back-stabbed!
Unfortunately, one of the risks associated with short term rental laws, is that they could change at any time. Government could start out sounding nice and tolerant towards STRs. So they do that and encourage folks to sign up and legally get registered. But then -- SNAP goes the trap!-- once hosts in that city register and provide the city all their information -- down comes the guillotine. The city turns around and starts passing more restrictions on STRs...more requirements...demanding more paperwork...let us pore through your personal private papers, let us come into your home and just look around randomly and snoop around in hopes of finding something we can use against you. Eventually, perhaps the city even decides to ban STRs altogether...and now they have your name, address, serial number, date of birth, and know the number of freckles on your left cheek. Fat chance of you doing a darn thing they can't scrutinize under the microscope.
These tactics are disgusting, but they are happening with some city governments. I hope not the city you're in, but ...for instance take Portland Oregon. Portland passed laws allowing STRs. So far so good. One of the requirements to get an STR permit was to allow government agents in one's home to do a home inspection. Well, hosts naivelythought, all they want to do is just check for dangerous conditions and I dont' have any of those so I'll be safe. No, that's not what the government wanted to do. Once they gained access to hosts' homes, they started to snoop around here there and everywhere on the property, basically conducting what amounted to an illegal search. They were looking for something, anything they could cite and fine the host for. Work done without permits, last year, or 40 years ago. So now many hosts who only wanted to get their STR permit are being fined for things done 40 years ago in their home before they owned it, in some cases, may even have to demolish work done a long time ago.
So my recommendation is...when your city passes STR laws....make clear to the government that you want to see protections against government bullying.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambada on Nov 8, 2016 16:30:10 GMT
I was quite baffled when she told me all this and showed me the letter revoking the STR. I thought the entire goal to have an STR office is to get as many hosts to register and get their permits, instead of scaring them off from getting one!
Now another thought comes to mind: Maybe it is not a good idea to put your STR number on your listing as it will help further in identifying and scrutinizing you.
|
|
|
|
Post by cc on Nov 8, 2016 22:54:33 GMT
Snap does go the trap! Never do things legally!! 🐁
|
|
|
|
Post by lambada on Nov 10, 2016 19:21:54 GMT
Snap does go the trap! Never do things legally!! 🐁 Definitely good reason not to do it in San Francisco where homeowners do not have any rights to their property! |
|
|
|
Post by keith on Nov 14, 2016 14:24:53 GMT
This is terrible advice.
I think you need to find out more about why the office terminated their account.
I, and many other hosts, have multiple listings, including "whole house" for the same unit with the same STR permit and have no such trouble with the office.
If she's reported incorrectly then your friend made a mistake and needs to clear that up.
When you report hosted vs. unhosted stays, you don't report the days the "whole house" part of the unit was rented as "unhosted" since you were there.. you report only the days you weren't present in the home as unhosted.
I'm sure your friend can schedule an appointment with the office of STR and clear things up if they're hosting legitimately.
In any case, unregistered hosts are causing a problem for all of us. The fact that less than 1/3 of hosts are registered is forcing the city to take more drastic action which will affect all of us. It also makes us all look bad and it's insulting to those of us who met with the supervisors and fought so hard to legalize our activity and fight against prop F.
This sort of attitude will simply make a future Prop F more likely to pass. We're losing sympathy with voters and with the board of supervisors..
On tuesday, the BoS will vote on (and PASS) legislation to further restrict homesharing to a max of 60 nights per year (hosted or unhosted).
The response to people not registering will NOT be that they get to simply continue unaffected, it will be that we will all be punished and likely will face ever increasing fines.
the Office of STR is increasing it's enforcement efforts, as is the city tax collector (they've issued a subpoena to vrbo/homeaway for host records-- you can rest assured, if you were hosting on that platform and not paying the occupancy tax, you'll be getting a huge tax bill soon).
Recommending people go back underground is NOT going to help this situation.. it'll only make it worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 14, 2016 15:24:29 GMT
The response to people not registering will NOT be that they get to simply continue unaffected, it will be that we will all be punished and likely will face ever increasing fines. the Office of STR is increasing it's enforcement efforts, as is the city tax collector (they've issued a subpoena to vrbo/homeaway for host records-- you can rest assured, if you were hosting on that platform and not paying the occupancy tax, you'll be getting a huge tax bill soon). Recommending people go back underground is NOT going to help this situation.. it'll only make it worse. I think you have a point Keith in that, if a city is very aggressive and intends to enforce their STR laws, and has many resources to do so, one is playing a dicey game doing STRs and hoping to evade detection. I also agree that the city is angered by noncomplying hosts. And yet, I don't think the city has demonstrated that it is worthy of trust. People have to feel they can trust their government, in order to comply with all its laws, particularly the more burdensome ones. That trust isn't there and thus it is not a surprise when one looks at the level of hostility many City Supervisors are directing to those doing short term rentals. For instance, would one berate those growing marijuana at home, to not register with the city, in a city where there was a lot of talk about the sin and evil of this activity? Governments need to show that they are operating not merely with force, coercion and violence, to obstruct people from doing thing that can't conceivably harm anyone (eg in-home hosting), but also that they are trustworthy entities, operating for the common good. When governments become bullies, fewer will want to cooperate with such governments. One could also perhaps draw a parallel, and see the same divisiveness going on in local government that one can see on the national level -- two very separate camps. One camp is aligned with the government-as-usual, business-as-usual orientation, and the other camp feels that business as usual is a bad idea, and is oriented to throwing a monkey wrench into the system and starting over. With regard to VRBO or HomeAway...I'm not clear how those platforms work, as I have no experience with them -- but with regard to the value of subpoenaed documents -- it all depends on whether bookings go through a third party or not. Any platform which simply allows you to advertise and does not process the bookings or payments (guests book direct with hosts) would likely have no information that is useful to city governments, since the platform has no evidence that any bookings ever occurred, or if they did, what length of time the stays were for (eg over 30 days or less than 30 days). All told, though, I think the whole picture is rather depressing for San Francisco hosts, and, by extension, for many other hosts -- as other cities are likely to copy San Francisco's approach, if it turns out to be effective. |
|
|
|
Post by High Priestess on Nov 14, 2016 15:47:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lambada on Nov 14, 2016 21:59:16 GMT
This is terrible advice. I think you need to find out more about why the office terminated their account. I, and many other hosts, have multiple listings, including "whole house" for the same unit with the same STR permit and have no such trouble with the office. If she's reported incorrectly then your friend made a mistake and needs to clear that up. When you report hosted vs. unhosted stays, you don't report the days the "whole house" part of the unit was rented as "unhosted" since you were there.. you report only the days you weren't present in the home as unhosted. I'm sure your friend can schedule an appointment with the office of STR and clear things up if they're hosting legitimately. In any case, unregistered hosts are causing a problem for all of us. The fact that less than 1/3 of hosts are registered is forcing the city to take more drastic action which will affect all of us. It also makes us all look bad and it's insulting to those of us who met with the supervisors and fought so hard to legalize our activity and fight against prop F. This sort of attitude will simply make a future Prop F more likely to pass. We're losing sympathy with voters and with the board of supervisors.. On tuesday, the BoS will vote on (and PASS) legislation to further restrict homesharing to a max of 60 nights per year (hosted or unhosted). The response to people not registering will NOT be that they get to simply continue unaffected, it will be that we will all be punished and likely will face ever increasing fines. the Office of STR is increasing it's enforcement efforts, as is the city tax collector (they've issued a subpoena to vrbo/homeaway for host records-- you can rest assured, if you were hosting on that platform and not paying the occupancy tax, you'll be getting a huge tax bill soon). Recommending people go back underground is NOT going to help this situation.. it'll only make it worse. All great points Keith, and I wouldn't argue with you. That host who got her STR revoked without any alert or courtesy notification used the same argument to get people including me to register. She probably made an error in reporting, or probably she did not describe the listing correctly, or whatever it was. I still think it was such a harsh punishment from the City to just revoke her permit, just like that. If you have a drivers license and you drive over the speed limit, it is fair to get pulled over, get fined, even a ding on your record, but you should be able to drive again soon. You shouldn't be punished by not being able to drive again for a year before you can apply for a new DL. The sad thing is, still using the drivers license analogy, the City of SF doesn't pull over those driving without permit. And if they are caught speeding, they will be given a chance to get their Drivers License at that time. Bottomline is, to me it makes more sense to be more lenient with hosts with STR instead those without. But that is not the case with the way the City operates. |
|
