The owners of short-term rentals (STRs) in Grapevine have filed suit challenging the city’s ban on STRs. Grapevine City Attorney Matthew Boyle responded to the suit in an emailed statement saying,
Plaintiffs seek a ruling that their illegal activity should be grandfathered for a period to allow them to recoup their investments in spite of the fact that they admit to having collected well more than half a million dollars in revenue from their “money-making venture.”
Interestingly, the city hasn’t enacted a similar ban on another “money-making venture” that takes place in residential neighborhoods–long-term rentals (LTRs).
Indeed, no city that has banned or severely restricted STRs has uttered a peep about banning or restricting LTRs. Yet, in nearly every jurisdiction, bans and restrictions have been justified because they keep commercial activities out of neighborhoods.
But LTRs are just as much a commercial activity as STRs. The only difference between the two is the duration of the lease agreement. If STRs are so disruptive to neighborhoods, then why isn’t the same argument used to ban or restrict LTRs?
Such hypocrisy is typical of those who seek to violate property rights. When they don’t like how others use their property, they seek regulations and controls to stop the offending behavior. Lacking principles, they are unable and unwilling to see that actions they find acceptable are essentially similar to those they find offensive. And so, they seek to ban one type of rental property while remaining silent about other types of rental property.
In truth, neither STRs nor LTRs should be subject to bans or restrictions. Owners have a moral right to use their property as they deem best. If the owner chooses to use the property as a rental, he has a moral right to establish whatever terms and conditions he desires, and tenants have a choice to accept or reject those terms and conditions. Those choices are nobody else’s business, including the city government.