Fifth Circuit addresses short-term rental challenge

Standard

This blog has previously discussed challenges by various cities, including cities in South Carolina, to short-term rentals in residential areas.

Vrbo and Airbnb are two go-to websites to find interesting short-term rentals in vacation locations. Sometimes a cabin or house seems much more appropriate and fun than a hotel room for a family get-away. Having a kitchen and room for dining is often a plus.

Arguments against such rentals often focus on noise and parking problems in otherwise quiet residential subdivisions.

Rules vary greatly in the cabins and houses we’ve rented, but a common theme seems to be that parties are not allowed. I’ve also seen limits on the number of cars that can be accommodated and, of course, the number of people permitted. Pets may or may not be allowed.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed such a challenge in Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, 46 F. 4th 317 (August 22, 2022). Thanks to Professor Dale Whitman of the University of Missouri at Kansas City Law School via the Dirt Listserv for information on this case.

An ordinance in the City of New Orleans required an owner to be a resident of the city to obtain a license to become a landlord allowing short-term rentals. When the plaintiffs challenged this ordinance using a “takings” theory, the Fifth Circuit held that theory to be inapplicable because permission to make short-term rentals of a residential unit is not a property interest. It is instead, according to the Court, a privilege.

The plaintiffs also argued that the ordinance was an undue burden on interstate commerce, and the Court agreed, stating that an ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce is per se invalid unless there are no available alternative methods for enforcing the city’s legitimate policy goals. The ordinance in question was a blanket prohibition against out-of-state property owners’ participation in the short-term rental market. The Court pointed out that the ordinance doesn’t just make it more difficult for non-residents to compete in the market for short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods; it forbids them from participating altogether.

The Court pointed to alternative methods for achieving the city’s legitimate goals of preventing nuisances, promoting affordable housing, and protecting neighborhoods’ residential character. More aggressive enforcement of nuisance laws, increased penalties for nuisance violations, increased taxes on short-term rentals, requiring an operator remain on the property during night hours, and capping the number of short-term rentals licenses in particular zoning district might be alternatives.

The ordinance was held unconstitutional and void because the city’s objectives could be addressed in other ways that did not burden interstate commerce.

What do you think? Would you be comfortable with short-term rentals in your neighborhood?

HUD to enforce sexual orientation and gender identity anti-discrimination rule

Standard

This blog has referred to the Dirt Listserv* previously, and I point in that direction again today for those among us who may represent clients in the business of renting or selling housing. On July 12, Professor Dale Whitman published a post entitled “Fair Housing Act will be applied to prohibit LGBTQ discrimination.”

The post mentions a Supreme Court case and a Department of Housing and Urban Development Press Release.

The case** held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender. The plaintiff, Gerald Bostock, worked as a child-welfare advocate for Clayton County, Georgia and was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee when he started playing in a gay softball league. (Two cases from other circuits were consolidated with this case. One involved a person who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor within days of mentioning to his employer that he is gay. The other involved a funeral home employee who was fired after disclosing to her employer her transgender status and intent to live and work as a woman.)

The press release was issued by HUD and can be read here. HUD announced that it will administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  

The release said that a number of studies indicate same-sex couples and transgender persons experience demonstrably less favorable treatment than their counterparts when seeking housing. But HUD was previously constrained in its efforts to address this housing discrimination because of a legal uncertainty about whether this discrimination is within HUD’s reach. HUD has now reached a legal conclusion based partially on the Bostock case. HUD indicates that it is simply saying that discrimination the Supreme Court held to be illegal in the workplace is also illegal in the housing market.

Complaints may be filed by contacting HUD’s Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Office at (800) 669-9777 or hud.gov/fairhousing.

Clients involved in housing should be advised of this development.

* Real Estate Lawyers Listserv: Dirt@LISTSERV.UMKC.EDU

** Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020)