Submitted by SpyCats t3_11aybnf in CambridgeMA
Single family home, with another free-standing structure on the property. Owners moved out of state years ago, and used to rent the houses long term to families. For years now they AirBnB the main house and a tenant/manager lives in the other structure. I am curious if this is allowed. Thanks!
Just leave it alone man. Are they hurting anybody here?
> Are they hurting anybody here?
Yes, they’re taking a unit that was previously rented out long-term, off the long-term market and into the short-term market in violation of local law. Stopping this sort of thing is the entire point of the ordinance.
Yeah, actually they are. The owners are taking a single family home off the market during an insane housing shortage. AirBnBs are hurting cities around the world.
If the house and "other structure" (maybe a converted carriage house or something like that?) are on the same lot, that may fit the "operator must live in a unit adjacent to the STR unit as a primary residence" bit.
>the operator must live in a unit adjacent to the STR unit as a primary residence and own all the other units
This is the hangup here, the owner in this case is not living on the property. Cambridge added this part to prevent people from buying up housing to use as short term rental investments.
Mmm, fair enough. I'd guessed that the "manager" may be considered "operator", but neglected to consider the ownership part in that line.
Yes in Barcelona, one of the cities with the worst short term rental problems in the world, this literally reached the point where there were 16k listings on Airbnb alone. It had an impact on housing affordability. People were renting homes to tourists instead of long term residents.
The issue with AirBnb, as you know (but some seem to not have figured out), is that what was once long-term residential housing becomes short term, hotel-like housing for tourists. It also often makes far more money than long term housing, which incentivizes real estate investors to buy up more and more units in the area to rent. Thus more and more supply is taken off the market for tourists, driving up rents for people in the city.
Right, this is where it felt unclear. The operator in this case may be the manager/tenant. So possibly legal (but still lame).
This is a really good point.
(Off topic but it frustrates me when people understand this, then then around and say supply and demand doesn't apply to housing and that building new homes can't address the housing crisis. Or they say Airbnb is bad but also oppose new hotels. )
Report it to the city and let them figure it out.
Ignorance really is bliss, huh
It would depend how this structure was zoned. Is the property considered a single multi-family structure or two single structures? If you go the city property database you can search the address and probably find out.
You can only rent your primary residence - either an apartment in a building you own and live in, or additional bedrooms in your home. So if that other building was a separate lot, it wouldn't be compliant.
nattarbox t1_j9uudia wrote
>The operator must live in the STR unit as a primary residence and may rent out up to a maximum of three legal bedrooms, called operator-occupied short-term rental;
AND/OR, the operator must live in a unit adjacent to the STR unit as a primary residence and own all the other units in a building which can only contain a maximum of four(4) residential dwelling units or less. An owner-adjacent short-term rental may only be rented as a whole unit, not as individual bedrooms.
sounds like no based on your description