Laserfiche WebLink
Received After Agenda Printed <br />June 11, 2019 <br />Item No. SS3 <br />June 11, 2019, City Council Item SS3 Comments <br />The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: <br />Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) <br />Item SS3. Update on Short Term Lodging <br />Based on the attachments, it is good to see staff apparently planning to discuss the detailed <br />language of an ordinance with the Council before it is presented for introduction. <br />It would have been even better if the "clean" version that has been posted for review matched <br />the latest, amended "redline," but this appears to still be very much a work in progress. <br />The attempt to copy court -tested language from other cities is also good, but the Council should <br />understand there no universally -accepted model, and Newport Beach's currently ordinance, <br />which the other's language is being grafted onto, is quite different from others. <br />Indeed, since the fear in regulating internet advertisements is the possibility of challenge an <br />invalidation due to federal preemption, court decisions from other parts of the country may be as <br />relevant as the one cited from Santa Monica. <br />The most recent readily available one opining on this subject seems to be AIRBNB, INC. v. City <br />of Boston, Civil No. 18-12358-LTS (Dist. Court, D. Massachusetts 2019), which noted that a <br />recent ordinance enacted by the City of Boston "echoes ordinances enacted by San Francisco <br />and Santa Monica, both of which survived nearly identical legal challenges by Airbnb," yet might <br />still contain some unique provisions that will require further litigation (such as a provision <br />completely banning an internet host from posting any listings for Boston in the event of repeated <br />violations). <br />Thus, we have at least three examples of court -reviewed short term lodging of municipal code <br />for comparison: <br />• San Francisco's Chapter 41 A -- tested by Airbnb, Inc. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, <br />217 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2016) <br />• Santa Monica's Chapter 6.20 -- tested by HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica, <br />918 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2019) <br />• Boston's Chapter 9-14 — with possible problems still being litigated in the case cited <br />above <br />It might be noted these codes all look very different from each other, and very different from <br />ours. So reliance on copying a few words out of context may not be sufficient to avoid <br />challenge. <br />One common feature that leaps out of these three, but which does not appear to be part of the <br />Newport Beach proposal as presently written, is that before attempting to regulate internet <br />advertising, each of these cities commits, in its code, to maintaining a readily available registry <br />of all units within the city that can be legitimately advertised at a particular moment, and by <br />