The licensing bill.
2026-0008 creates a new chapter of the City Code establishing an STR licensing regime. We are not opposed to licensing — done well, it is the tool that separates responsible operators from bad actors. Our concern is what this version does when paired with the zoning bill.
The bill text is available through the City's legislative records and the Department of City Planning's public notices site — search “Short-Term Rental” or “2026-0008”.
What the bill requires.
- A City STR license to operate at all.
- Zoning approval under the zoning code — which ties this bill directly to 2026-0009.
- A rental permit under Chapter 781, or alignment with that program.
- A 28-day limit on consecutive guest stays.
- Maximum occupancy determined through Chapter 781 and PLI rules rather than stated as a formula in the STR law itself.
- An operator who is owner-occupant or within 25 miles, depending on how the operator role is defined.
- The license posted “on the property.”
- A daily guest register in certain circumstances.
Six things that need fixing.
It relies on the zoning bill for its most important effects
The licensing bill effectively says your ability to operate depends on zoning treatment — and zoning treatment is controlled by 2026-0009. The two cannot be evaluated separately, which is precisely why they should not be passed together.
A new licensing layer becomes an enforcement hook
Compliant operators can be shut down over technicalities: renewal timing, paperwork, posting details, administrative delay. Enforcement should target conduct, not clerical failure.
The 28-day language creates mid-term confusion
Written as a hard limit rather than a definition, it can penalize legitimate mid-term stays — travel nurses, families displaced by insurance claims, relocating workers, students. It should clearly mark the boundary between short-term and long-term regimes, not ban a category of guest.
A daily guest registry is a real liability
It requires collecting and storing identifying information about visiting families, with no stated limits on retention, access or purpose. That is a privacy risk, a breach risk, and a meaningful compliance burden — carried by the operator.
“Posted on the property” is security-sensitive
If read as exterior posting, it marks a property publicly as a short-term rental — which is a safety concern for guests and neighbors alike. The bill should say explicitly that posting is inside the unit.
The 25-mile rule measures the wrong thing
Distance is not responsiveness. A manager fifteen minutes away who does not answer the phone is worse than a responsible contact who answers immediately and can be on site when needed. The rule also leaves “operator” ambiguous — owner, manager, or platform account holder.
We would vote for a fixed version of this bill.
Licensing is the right starting point. Pass it first, on its own, and let the data it produces decide whether any zoning restriction is warranted.
- Universal registration with a City-issued license number
- License number displayed on public listings
- A 24/7 responsible contact with authority to act
- A defined response time, replacing the 25-mile rule
- Safety attestation or inspection pathway
- Proof of liability coverage, and tax compliance
- Records tied to actual investigations, not blanket registries
- A clear enforcement ladder with notice and appeal rights