A public hearing on the proposed ordinance regulating short term rentals is scheduled for Wednesday, March 1 at 5:30 p.m. in the Katie Dorsett Council Chamber in city hall.
The public hearing is being held at a special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which will make a recommendation about the proposed ordinance to the Greensboro City Council. While a committee of “stakeholders” spent five months meeting to provide input, this is an opportunity the public will have to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposed ordinance.
The City Council will also hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance.
Greensboro currently has no ordinance specifically regulating short term residential rentals such as Airbnb and VRBO.
Some residents of neighborhoods, particularly those close to downtown Greensboro and the Coliseum, have expressed concern that the proposed ordinance does not go far enough in restricting short term rentals.
The website neighborsnotairbnbs.org, which is clearly opposed to the proposed ordinance, lists a number of the concerns being expressed.
Short term rentals can be divided into two types. One where an owner rents out a portion of their primary residence and the second where an owner rents out the entire property and lives elsewhere.
The concerns listed on the website are about non-owner occupied short term rentals and it states, “we are concerned about non-owner occupied STR, which is a commercial venture that involves renting out an entire property that is not the owner’s primary residence. We simply believe that our homes and our neighborhoods must be protected.”
Density is listed as another concern on the website. “We are concerned about the potential for multiple non-owner occupied STRs to be located in close proximity to one another in a neighborhood. This can negatively impact property values and deprive the neighborhood of its greatest resource: other neighbors who have a stake in making the neighborhood a happy place to live. We believe that there should be a limit on the density of STRs in our neighborhoods to ensure that they remain primarily residential.”
Enforcement is a third issue listed as a concern on the website. “The proposed ordinance’s policies for violators are too weak and are not enforceable.”
This is a Woke council and have probably been lobbied by those that do not want restrictions. Hope these folks remember this when it is time to vote this council out. One of the council members lives in a high end gated retirement community that pays no city or county taxes and she will not be concerned with how the opposition feels about this ord.
Define “woke” please. So far, it conventionally means you are against gays and want to use the N word. How does woke apply to wanting to keep the integrity of your neighborhood solid. These are people’s homes, the character of their community, and STR would sell all that away to make a buck. Terrible!
You can’t get back what you break in society!