Many people were surprised on May 7, when the Malibu Planning Commissioners took a consensus vote to recommend that city council pass an ordinance banning short-term rentals. In addition, many residents are just now becoming aware that the issue is heading to city council.
I’d like to take a moment to explain what happened and why.
Without question, our panel of appointed commissioners is an exemplary group of individuals who have undertaken the responsibility of their positions on this issue in a very sober and diligent manner. They have read our letters, met with the lobbyists and met with the operators and the residents.
There’s no doubt they’ve given significant thought to the gravity of this legacy decision. They have listened carefully, studied and possess a solid understanding what can go wrong if we pass a weak ordinance.
Housing is interconnected with everything in a city. Even a small conversion of 5-15 percent of housing stock into short-term rentals creates significant long-term effects that we should understand before we go any further. The proposed ordinance will have huge impact on our demographics, local economy and our quality of life for decades to come.
Short-term rentals have been in discussion at city hall since 2014-15 and we still do not have an ordinance, clear code definitions, and a plan and budget for compliance and enforcement.
Malibu is a wealthy community and doesn’t need the transient occupancy tax [TOT] for its survival. In the bigger picture, the TOT revenue is meaningless. The person who cares the most about the TOT is the city manager, a nonresident employee that thinks her job is dependent on how much revenue she brings in and likes to justify her $300,000-a-year salary by that metric. I see that as a short-sighted position. Nevertheless, I suppose those are the risks you take in bureaucratic politics.
On Nov. 20, the city presented a proposed ordinance that was actually a good start. It resolves the issue of the lost apartments and protects the residents who share their primary residences and need extra money to make ends meet or pay for healthcare.
What the proposed ordinance lacks is controls on investor units and secondary homes, a plan and budget for enforcement, and continuity within the city’s existing charter and policies. When we solve for these items, the nuisances will also abate.
The commissioners listened to the testimony of many Airbnb operators and just a few of us from the opposition. At the end of hearing, each of the commissioners requested that staff make specific improvements to the ordinance and sent it back for revision. Fair enough.
In March, a mysterious decision was made to bypass the planning commission and move the ordinance to council without revision. We were watching and prevailed in a weekend battle to send it back to the Planning Commission—a hearing date was set for May 7, leaving ample time to revise the ordinance.
On April 27, the city posted the revision, but much to our disappointment, the revision is not a revision. In fact, nothing was done to address the commissioners’ requests other than to ignore them completely. The proposed ordinance is a non-starter for anybody.
Opponents and proponents of STRs should be deeply incensed by this. The city manager is the point person on the draft and is responsible for its wording and what it includes. Regardless of what side you’re on, this behavior is lazy and unacceptable. If you are angry or worried by the commissioner’s vote, then let’s make sure your feelings are pointed in the right direction. The city manager has failed us all.
And that is why the planning commissioners took the bold step and made the right decision at the right time to recommend that council pass an ordinance that bans short-term rentals entirely.
The vote was meant to send a very strong message to staff that there are only two choices. The city can 1) Be the boss and do it right, or 2) Ban the whole thing.
The threat of ban is the tool that helps cities stop the clock, regain control and reach a compromise. Now, the ordinance goes back to staff for revision and then onto council for another hearing.
City council must now de-conflate this issue from every other issue and segregate it from previous decisions, grudges and access to enthusiasms. This is not a decision that can be made based on tax revenue or emotion.
This is a decision that requires our council to listen and study just as our commissioners did, and to access wisdom based on accurate information with an understanding of the industry that they are regulating and what the long-term consequences for full-time residents are.
An ineffectual ordinance is meaningless. It is the same as not having an ordinance at all. If the city manager’s office is unable to craft a real ordinance, I imagine that by the time the proposed ordinance gets to city council they will come to the same decision as the planning commission.
We are the caretakers of something very special. We are asking the questions: What will Malibu be like in five, 10, 20-plus years if the short-term growth trend continues as projected and goes unregulated? What could go wrong and what are the consequences? What kind of Malibu are we leaving for future generations?
New technologies bring disruption, this time its in the housing sector. There’s never been anything like this in the history of the world; that’s why most people don’t recognize it.
But some of us do recognize what’s happening and when the dust settles, hopefully we come to a compromise that is comprised of wisdom, long-term vision and is in sync with our city charter and City Council Policy No. 15, which states:
“The general welfare of the city’s residents shall always be considered as primary to any special interests of any individual or group of individuals or the interests of any individual elected or appointed city official.”
It behooves us all to come together to work on a compromise. I’m happy to meet anyone who opposes our position. I am happy to discuss at length with anyone who will listen what it will take to get a good and enforceable ordinance.
Michael Lustig