Cap on rental days still high in latest draft of home-sharing ordinance

The City of Los Angeles released the new draft home-sharing ordinance last week. The ordinance incorporates amendments made during the City Council’s Housing Committee meeting in early December. Thank you again to all that attended.

The amendments include: 

  • Removing all references that permit home-sharing in non-primary residences. 

  • Clarifying prohibition on Home-Sharing in units subject to the Rent StabilizationOrdinance applies to all units (not just those that are renter-occupied).

These amendments strengthen the ordinance. However, we are working with the City and the "home-sharing" companies regarding the caps on the amount of days allowed per home-sharer. The current ordinance allows for 180 days and we, along with our allies, are asking for 60 days. 

For a refresher on why this is such a critical issue, please read our blog post on the cap and our new cap quick facts. 

We have learned from other cities that have been working to regulate short-term rentals and have instituted reasonable caps. Some include:


60 Days


30 Days


90 Days

New Orleans

90 Days

New York City

30 Days

San Francisco

90 Days

Santa Monica

30 Days

Palm Springs

32 Stays (Not Days)

Our next opportunity to influence the ordinance with testimony is coming soon. The ordinance will now move to the Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUM) before heading to the full City Council. We are pushing for the hearing to happen as soon as possible and will update you as soon as we have a date. We will need our supporters out in full force for this final push to make sure that we have an enforceable ordinance that truly protects our neighborhoods. 

You can read the full text of the newest version of the ordinance by clicking on the image below. We welcome your feedback and look forward to seeing you at the PLUM hearing soon!


Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • matt berger
    commented 2017-02-26 21:38:05 -0800
    Hi. First, I would like to state that the city zoned residential areas to create and support families and the community life of families. Just because an industry of short-term rental has evolved from the internet does not all of a sudden sanction the government to legislate a change in our zoning and destroy family living and family communities for individual financial gain. What all of a sudden gives these investors or homeowners the right to change the character and laws of our communities? Yet, here we are, legalizing a complete zoning change without even questioning whether any short-term rental should be permitted. Shouldn’t the community first collectively decide through a vote whether we agree to this change in zoning rather than just legislate and accept that change because the city needs a new income source?
    Secondly, the short-term rental draft ordinance has several significant loopholes. Although it states that short-term rent only in the primary residence, there is no provision that requires the landlord, owner, investor to be on the premises or that he can only rent a room or a couch, true home-sharing. Instead, they must only state that it is their primary residence and there is no way to prove that the home is not their primary residence or that they live on the premises. Likewise, although the owners of a duplex may be a company or a group, they can easily use multiple names to rent both units as a primary residence and be absentee landlords/owners/investors. And there will be no way to prove that they are violating without obtaining a search warrant. The draft ordinance as written is unworkable, the surreptious legalization of Airbnb hotels, and incapable of enforcement.
    Third, the 120 day provision is the legalization of Airbnb hotels. If a person cannot survive without renting a part or the whole house for less than 120 days then they shouldn’t be owning the property. There are very few families that will want people sharing a home with them for 120 days. This is clearly a loophole that is meant to permit Airbnb hotels. I’m not against people renting their houses if and when they go on their vacations, but nobody is on vacation for 6 months of a year and renting it short-term rather than monthly or bi-monthly or 6 months at a time. This provision is clearly to permit investors to run their houses as a business or a hotel. The provision should only be to allow normal homeowners to rent for when they go on vacation, 15-30 days a year.
    Fourth, the three strikes provision is laughable. That means that the neighbors have to have the offending party busted 3 times before the city will attempt to prosecute. That means the neighbors will have to videotape, surveil, etc. to get evidence against the offenders, a herculean task. Amazing in its scope and impossible in its application. We will need a whole intelligence network to stop illegal activity. And even after that huge amount of work, it doesn’t mean that they will have their permit revoked. Certainly, the offending party’s lawyers will fight the evidence and the prosecution and drag it on forever or until it is dropped and,meanwhile, continue to offend. And even after it is revoked, they may continue to offend because the money is so great. That is exactly what is going on now with my neighbors. Too cases at the City Attorney and nothing happening. Three strikes is a totally corrupt and unenforceable statute and again is a provision to legalize Airbnb hotels.
    Fifth, we bought and invested in our residential properties believing that we were joining a community of families as provided by the zoning. Now, all of a sudden, we are expected to accept unknown individuals coming and going at all hours in a neighbor’s house, waking us up in the middle of the night, partying, smoking, drinking around our children. It is not safe or secure or comfortable. We no longer have children of families with whom are children can befriend, go to school with, share holidays, learn from. Instead, we just have a daily group of transients with no regard for our families, our way of life, or our community.
    There are so many more loopholes and lack of enforcement mechanisms in the present legislation with so many provisions that it is unworkable in its present form. We need a statute that is simple and direct with instant and effective and complete enforcement. Why all of a sudden must the taxpaying residential families of this city have to agree to short-term rental. We never had this problem before. Can’t the City live off of all of the revenue it receives now? Why do we have to accept Airbnb hotels or any other type of new zoning that will ruin our community and familial life and cause a constant nuisance for the property taxpayers of the city. Surely, there is not a majority that wants this change to their detriment. All of the studies have shown that it’s just a handful of greedy investors and others who are pushing this change to our detriment.
    Thanks for listening, Matt Berger
  • matt berger
    followed this page 2017-02-26 21:34:06 -0800