Opponents of short-term rentals (STRs) often claim that the owners of such properties are operating a commercial business in a residential area. In most neighborhoods, either zoning or deed restrictions prohibit such activities. As an example, last year, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of an STR owner who was cited by his homeowners association for operating a commercial enterprise.
Interestingly, the opponents of STRs say nothing about long-term rentals, and this reveals their hypocrisy. If renting one’s property constitutes a commercial enterprise, then this is true whether the lease is for one night or one year. Unfortunately, companies such as Airbnb and HomeAway do not raise this point.
Attempting to defend property rights on the basis of the hypocrisy of one’s opponents is not an effective strategy. Property rights should be defended on moral grounds–the moral right of individuals to take the actions they deem best to sustain and enhance their lives. And this includes using their property as they choose, so long as they respect the rights of others to do the same.
But identifying hypocrisy when it occurs does undermine one’s opponents. And this is particularly true when those opponents are presenting an argument that seems plausible.
A plausible argument can be made that STRs are commercial enterprises. Tenants pay money for a place to stay, and that trade makes them appear to be commercial businesses. Again, the same can be said about long-term rentals. So, why are STRs opposed and banned but long-term rentals are not? That is the question that STR opponents should be challenged to answer.