It's really hard to see a version of this story that supports your claim that these laws are "hammers in search of nails".
In one telling, you --- or, the proverbial you, the 10 less-responsible versions of you that exist for every equally-responsible you --- bringing a massive flow of short-term renters to buildings and neighborhoods zoned and coded for long-term tenants, overriding those regulations based entirely on your personal hunch that people are generally better than the democratic process of your municipality has decided they are.
In another telling, you are more or less stating outright that, because after buying a building designed for three families you discovered you don't like letting two other families have long-term leases, you've converted your three-family dwelling into a hotel. Even putting zoning aside, you're like living proof of how Airbnb impacts housing stock.
I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I'm saying that you're making a pretty clear case that there is a significant public policy stake in whether or not you should be able to continue doing it it.
I'm not even saying that the zoning concern or the housing stock concern should prevail or are dispositive or anything! I happen to find them compelling, but, whatever. I'm just saying, if I was trying to convince people that the state should mind its own business and let a hundred Airbnbs bloom, this is probably not the thing I would brag about in public.
This house was built around the turn of the century as a single family house. At some point someone changed it to three.
I'm changing it back. I own it. If for some reason the town tried to stop me from doing short term rentals, I would just convert the house to single family and sell it for twice what I bought it for.
Unless one is opposed to property rights and free markets, I don't see how how one has standing to complain.
> Unless one is opposed to property rights and free markets, I don't see how how one has standing to complain.
Owning property doesn't let you alone change its zoning. If I was your free market property right loving neighbor I would be upset that you're running a hotel in a residential area.
It is fine to own a place and do things that don't negatively affect other folks inside: Renting it out in any fashion affects others to a point.
The fact of the matter is that you've been living in a multiple-family dwelling with three residences, only one of which was being rented out. You didn't like the arrangement, and decided to revert it to a single family home, leaving the town with two fewer housing units.
In the process of rennovation, you have been renting it out in the manner of a hotel by layman's standards - but you aren't technically a hotel. Basically, you get to take advantage of a poorly written law.
Property rights only go so far - once you start affecting others, including renting a portion of house for any length of time - you start picking up responsibilities. Free markets? Free markets work well in some areas, some not as well: Others need regulations to various degrees.
And hotels and housing are one of those that somewhat need regulation because we know some folks do bad or stupid stuff to the detriment of others, and what you do as a landlord renting in any capacity affects others.
And you are still renting it out in some fashion. Why should the laws to either hotels/motels/b&b's or laws applying to a landlord not apply? For the most part, such laws are designed to protect a renter and keep minimum standards for cleanliness and other such things. Some rental laws are there because of shortages and prices [1]. Hotels often pay extra taxes. In some areas, a bed and breakfast has looser and different standards, partially because it isn't unheard of to take a family home and turn it into a B&B, with the owners living in a portion.
And truth is that while I'd support someone renting out their place for a week or two once or twice a year without many issues (permit or fees, mostly), once you are regularly doing such, you are either a landlord or a hotel manager and should have such laws governing you. The pushback from those doing this I see as basically folks trying to get out of complying with the law.
[1] Understandably, two units hardly affects the housing market so long as it is an isolated incident, but if or when that trends to multiple folks, it can.
Every time people say "property rights, free markets", other people keep pointing out that property rights in the US have never been absolute, and really represent a basket of different more specific rights. But people keep wielding the term "property rights" as if it alone was dispositive.
In one telling, you --- or, the proverbial you, the 10 less-responsible versions of you that exist for every equally-responsible you --- bringing a massive flow of short-term renters to buildings and neighborhoods zoned and coded for long-term tenants, overriding those regulations based entirely on your personal hunch that people are generally better than the democratic process of your municipality has decided they are.
In another telling, you are more or less stating outright that, because after buying a building designed for three families you discovered you don't like letting two other families have long-term leases, you've converted your three-family dwelling into a hotel. Even putting zoning aside, you're like living proof of how Airbnb impacts housing stock.
I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong. I'm saying that you're making a pretty clear case that there is a significant public policy stake in whether or not you should be able to continue doing it it.
I'm not even saying that the zoning concern or the housing stock concern should prevail or are dispositive or anything! I happen to find them compelling, but, whatever. I'm just saying, if I was trying to convince people that the state should mind its own business and let a hundred Airbnbs bloom, this is probably not the thing I would brag about in public.