The starting point for the Short Term Rental discussion is not that we need a way to collect taxes. It's that they are currently ILLEGAL. Much of the confusion around these revolves around the misunderstanding of their legal status. If you are operating a property that rents for less than 30 days and you are not residing on the property yourself, you are operating in violation of city ordinances.
Whether you are for or opposed, it's important you understand the conversation that's actually going on so you can argue your case with the city more effectively. Everyone needs to bring a little to the table. Unfortunately The Eagle article didn't provide some important context. What the city is considering is to actually make them legal for the first time. It is not to take away any right you currently have as a property owner. Most of us Texans will agree that we have some pretty strong rights when we buy property, but those same people should then agree that if a right is specifically denied a property, you don't have it. Most conservatives support the constitution and rule of law more than our right to do anything we want, particularly in a zoned neighborhood. So in this case you can't really ride the property-rights horse too far.
Because it is not currently legal, what is actually being discussed is, 1) should the city allow it at all, and 2) if the city does allow it, how can we limit the intensity of use (regulate) so it is "compatible" with families and children in the same neighborhood.
Our residential zoning is called General Suburban (GS) and it allows a diverse mix of uses. But its fundamental principle is that it will protect its owners from "incompatible uses". The city determined years ago that an owner-occupied B&B was compatible, but even then we recognized it was a commercial business serving the public and imposed restrictions and safety regulations. So if you have purchased a General Suburban property you've bought the right to an owner-occupied B&S.
During the same time, the city decided that if the owner wasn't residing on the property, it would not end up being "compatible" with a residential neighborhood. It is a pure commercial hotel. So that's already the ordinance, and it's a good one. What's happened is that AirBnB caught them by surprise. They had little impact to start with and they were actually only used a few days a year. So the city didn't enforce the existing prohibition, and this confused investors as to the legality. The loss of taxes was definitely the motivation to do something about it (along with the hotel lobby), but the core issue is still the illegality. To collect taxes they have to specifically make them legal. And to make commercial hotels in residential neighborhoods legal they have to regulate them. Have too!
What's making this more complicated is that court decisions are sending mixed signals on what a city can or can't do to regulate the intensity of use (number of occupants, cars on the street, additional number of party guests allowed, etc.). Critical court decisions are still in the works. When city leaders say they want to "push the boundaries" they are actually talking to our city attorney. Leaders are telling her they are willing to take the risk and if an ordinance will need to be changed later due to an ongoing court case we can easily to it. They want her to do as much as possible to protect our families and children from an intensity of use that is incompatible (not a ban). They are also saying they are willing to go to court if ordinances are challenged in College Station itself on issues that are still fuzzy.
In the mean time the deed restricted HOAs are moving quickly to establish total bans. This is one of the issues that's still in the courts. HOA's asking for total bans will easily get the required voter approval. The result is that if the city does not pursue as much as they can it will end up in a political bind. The city will be arguing that it cannot do things the HOAs are all actually doing. To my knowledge no council member has suggested a ban and they are powerfully motivated by the tax income to allow them. The extreme difference will not go down well if HOAs have a total ban and the city is saying it can't regulate at all. This is also a rare case were the HOA and non-HOA neighborhoods are very aligned. If the city fights this battle, the are fighting it for all of the HOAs who may not actually have the resources to defend themselves. The city will not defend regulation that exceeds its own (i.e., total ban), but it will defend any level of restriction it chooses to apply uniformly across the city.
The HOAs are moving fast, but the unprotected neighborhoods will have to depend on city ordinances. My own preference is to allow STRs in any subdivision where the property is the "legal homestead" of the owner. This lets anyone rent out for game days or a little cash to help pay their ridiculous property taxes. That's the situation most of you are imagining and I agree. By only allowing Homestead owners to rent their residence, we will also address the code enforcement problem. Owners will place their own restrictions to seek deposits or fees from renters how do damage or make their neighbors mad.
I do not believe we should allow purely commercial rentals in any subdivision. Currently STRs are being used for rotating work crews without background checks in neighborhoods with children, frat reunions that house 16 people and serve as party central for the entire organization, and other intense uses. This is what the new investor-driven STRs are intended for. Don't kid yourself, the market will maximize profit. It cannot possibly be argued that these are compatible with families and children.
Keep in mind, these are currently illegal by city ordinance. The conversation is not about how much of your rights the city will take away, it's about how much right the city will give you. It's about how much of your neighbor's right to be protected from incompatible uses in a GS zone will be taken away from them?