Prop F Empowers Neighbors to Crack Down on Short Term Rentals in San Francisco – 

A proposition on the November 3 ballot in San Francisco takes an unusual approach to enforce limitations on AirBnB/VRBO/Flip Key type rentals. Prop F would prohibit short-term rentals of second units and limit other short-term rentals to 75 days per year, which is far more than the typical AirBnB online rental by San Francisco hosts. According to a report by San Francisco’s budget analyst, 70% of AirBnB hosts in the city rent only a few weekends per year, receiving a total annual payment of $3120 from AirBnB.

Prof F encourages neighbors within 100 feet to sue hosts of brief visitors renting through online services.  Plaintiffs who win in court would be entitled to special damages of $250 to $1,000 a day on top of attorney fees and costs. It also allows various parties to sue hosting platforms like Airbnb in addition to individual hosts.

Ballotpedia Sf reports:

This measure would impose restrictions on private, short-term housing rentals. It would restrict all such private rentals to only 75 nights per year and impose provisions designed to ensure such private rentals are paying hotel taxes and following city code. It would also require guest and revenue reports from rental hosts and “hosting platforms” every three months. Moreover, Proposition F was designed to prohibit the use of “in-law” units for short-term rentals and enact regulations concerning privacy, peace and quiet. Proposition F would allow enforcement of its provisions by the city, as well as authorizing private action lawsuits by “interested parties”—defined as anyone living within 100 feet—against those suspected of violating the law.

The initiative was motivated by and targets websites such as Airbnb or Homeaway, which feature rental listings nation- and world-wide. It was proposed by a coalition of unions, land owners, housing advocates and neighborhood groups called Share Better SF. In the interest of easy enforcement, the initiative would focus on penalties for websites that post rental listings that do not comply with city law, as well as punishing individual home owners or sub-leasers. The fines proposed for websites featuring illegal posts range from $250 to $1,000 per day for each non-compliant post. Estimates show the fines for a website such as Airbnb could add up to millions of dollars unless a way was found to keep listings in accordance with city law.

Airbnb has responded with a media campaign against the measure through a political committee, SF for Everyone, No on Proposition F.

Two related ordinances are under consideration by the city’s Board of Supervisors, one would limit short-term rentals to 60 days per year and the other would impose a  120 days per year limit.

Share Better SF web ad supporting Prop F.

Airbnb web ad opposing Prop F.

SF Chronicle article.

Landscape 1:  Ramona/Ronada Traffic Triangle.  A traffic island built to improve pedestrian safety that uses drought-tolerant landscaping.  Supported by the neighborhood, the project cost was $185,000 with $30,000 in private contributions ($25,000 from the Piedmont Beautification Foundation and $5000 from the neighborhood).  At this, the peak of the drought, the triangle is in full bloom.

~~~

Landscape 2: the Highland Garden Walk.  A drought-tolerant landscape with pathways, pedestrian seating and themed gardens proposed to replace the Sheridan Avenue “crescent”, the swath of lawn where Sheridan runs into Highland Avenue. Supported by a majority of the neighborhood, the project is estimated to cost $90,000 and is in line for $30,000 in grant funding ($20,000 StopWaste, and $10,000 from EBMUD).  At this the peak of the drought, the project would replace an ornamental lawn that uses 600,000 gallons of water per year.

~~~

The difference between the two projects?  The Traffic Triangle is completed and is an asset to the community. The Garden Walk is at a standstill and at risk of losing it’s funding.

~~~

If you are interested in more details, watch the Park Commission meeting at minute 58 to see staff’s assessment of the project (http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/video/,  Park Commission, September 2 meeting).  The main reasons for the delay seem to be preference for the lush lawn and “50/50” support for the project by the Piedmont Beautification Foundation.  Additional meetings will be held to tweak the project but unless the design is resolved soon, funding for the project will be lost as well as the planting window for a new garden.

~~~

The lawn at Sheridan and Highland Avenues is the most water-inefficient public landscape in Piedmont.  This small lawn uses 600,000 gallons of water per year, 4% of municipal water usage, yet goes virtually untrodden on by the public.  Commenters at the Park Commission suggested that the lawn provides a pleasant visual “drive by” landscape for Piedmonters.   I suggest they drive by the Sheridan lawn and the Ramona/Ronada Triangle today and see which provides a better visual drive by.

~~~

Drought-tolerant landscaping is the future for California and Piedmont should take advantage of any available funding. Is the city’s legacy for the worst drought in California history going to be that it rejected funds to replace water-wasteful landscaping?   And how can the city honestly ask for neighborhood contributions when it won’t avail itself of these funds?

 ~

Garrett Keating, Former Piedmont Council Member

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association. Comments on the opinions are welcomed.