Category: City Council

Proposed Sacramento Airbnb Ordinance a Mixed bag

I’ve finally had the chance to look over the proposed ordinance going before the Sacramento Planning and Design Commission tonight. If you’ll recall, I previously blogged about this.

The good news is that the ordinance does not prohibit property owners or renters from renting their property on a short-term basis. The bad news is that several permit fees and taxes will now be imposed on them for the “privilege” of using their own property.

Fortunately, the requirement that the host remain on the property from 11 pm to 5 am appears to have been removed. My biggest issue going forward (at least until I see how much this is all going to cost your typical host) is the arbitrary limit to 90 days of bookings for hosts renting out a secondary residence. How did the city arrive at 90 days? And why?

While I’m happy to see the city taking the attitude of welcoming the business models of hosts using sites like Airbnb and VRBO, this ordinance still leaves much to be desired. I know I have unrealistic expectations, but I believe that all associated problems with these activities can be resolved with existing nuisance law. Further, treating people as ATMs who are simply hustling to make extra money is a tired approach to governance.

Instead of allowing the market and existing law to sort out any (mainly speculative) problems, this ordinance begrudgingly accommodates property rights and economic liberty. Only when city bureaucrats stop acting like city residents must ask permission for everything they do will we truly see economic growth take off.

Potential Uber Vote Coming

Tomorrow, August 14, could see a vote from the New Orleans City Council on the pending ordinance updates to the luxury, for-hire vehicle (sedans and limos) code. Of course, Uber’s luxury sedan service, Uber Black will be impacted by the result of the Council’s decision.

I have previously written at length about the issues at play here and here. To briefly sum up the main points:

1) Removing the 3 hour reservation requirement is good.

2) Leaving in place the requirement that luxury vehicle companies own at least 2 vehicles serves as a barrier to entry for entrepreneurs who can only afford to break into the market with one vehicle. This requirement should be repealed.

3) In spite of Council President Head and advisor to the Mayor, Ryan Berni’s fun with words, adjusting the minimum fare formula is still price fixing. Creating an arbitrary, artificial difference, by law, between fares that taxis and luxury vehicles can charge only accomplishes economic protectionism. The existing vehicle companies, especially taxis, are using the government to force people to pay more than they otherwise might.

In short, it is not the job of the government to protect an entrenched, traditional industry from competition. Whether taxi owners like it or not, technology will eventually force them to truly compete with newcomers like Uber and Lyft, or go out of business fighting it.

Rather than trying to use the government to prolong the status quo, they should instead focus their energy on lobbying for fewer government mandated restrictions on their operations. Services like Uber show that the public can still be protected without the current burdensome regulations imposed on for-hire vehicles.

While it is a welcome sight that the city is taking a fresh look at the current laws, a more basic overhaul is what is truly needed for the New Orleans transportation industry to truly thrive and become something we can be proud of in a city that prides itself on creativity and innovation.

The City Council meeting is scheduled for 10AM at City Hall.

*UPDATE* According to multiple reports on Twitter, the Council voted to table a vote on this issue until the September 4th meeting.

A Man’s Home Is His Licensed, Regulated, and Taxed Castle

If you have ever rented out a room in your home for the weekend to earn a little extra cash and make a new friend, you may be a criminal.  If you have taken the effort to fix up an investment home and believe you can make a higher profit renting it to people on a short-term basis instead of in traditional, six month or year-long leases, you may be a criminal.

If you have ever left town for Mardi Gras or Jazz Fest to avoid the crowds and rented your house to someone for the festivities, you are a criminal.

While 84% of Americans disagree, that is the attitude of some hotel and bed and breakfast (B&B) owners and a few disgruntled neighbors of short-term rental properties in New Orleans.

On July 10, 2014, the New Orleans City Council voted to clarify the law making all residential rentals of less than 30 days (60 days in the French Quarter) illegal. This certainly isn’t the first time the City Council has found itself in the middle of a debate between supporters of newer, disruptive businesses and technologies that shake up the status quo, and those who argue that the newcomers are scofflaws who unfairly threaten the bottom line of existing businesses. In 2013 it was food trucks, earlier this summer Uber entered the conversation, and now it is short-term rentals like those found on websites Airbnb and VRBO.

This time around, prohibitionists are displeased that owners of these “illegal” short-term rentals are able to avoid inspections by the city and are not paying occupancy taxes on their rentals. Some neighbors complain that weekend renters make too much noise, litter, take up parking, and ruin the character of their neighborhoods.

This story should come as no surprise to regular readers of the Liberty in Action blog. San Francisco, “the city with the highest median rent rate” in the country, has banned short-term rentals despite having a problematic housing shortage. Issues have also come up in Grand Rapids, Michigan and New York City.

Nonetheless, in New Orleans, an outright ban is counterproductive and unnecessary to address the chief complaints because there are pre-existing legal mechanisms in place to handle problems perceived to arise from short-term rentals.

First, for those concerned with the safety of a property that isn’t subject to the same inspections as licensed hotels and B&Bs, the New Orleans Department of Code Enforcement is authorized to enforce code compliance on all buildings in the city. Second, neighbors worried about loud renters or litter can already use nuisance laws to address these issues through the District Attorney’s office.

Third, those worried about bed and breakfasts suffering from unfair competition because “illegal” property owners don’t pay taxes should remember that only larger businesses with three or more units pay occupancy taxes, not all licensed B&Bs. In any event, these properties are still subject to regular property taxes. Fourth, street parking on public streets is just that, public. Therefore, a permanent resident of the neighborhood has no more of a claim to a spot than anyone else does.

Finally, attempting to define the character of a neighborhood and debating whether short-term rentals negatively impact it are certainly not immune to significant subjectivity. What to some are transient outsiders, are to others an opportunity to make new friends and leave a good impression about the city to encourage future visits and spending in the community.

Nevertheless, the City Council seems to be open to future legalization and regulation measures. To that end, a group of property owners who rent property on a short-term basis have organized to draft an ordinance and have commissioned a study by the University of New Orleans to analyze the economic impact of short-term rentals. This is a better approach.

Leaving arguments aside as to what additional regulations, if any, are necessary, legalization of short-term rentals is the best decision for three reasons. Short-term rentals help fill properties that may otherwise sit empty, providing an additional incentive for property owners to renovate their property and return it to the housing stock, and lessening opportunities for crime carried out against or within vacant homes. Entrepreneurs are able to create an additional stream of income whenever they need it by renting out rooms in their home. And an additional option is made available for visitors to New Orleans who prefer arrangements that aren’t provided by hotels and traditional B&Bs.

As shown above, the law already provides solutions to safety issues and unruly renters. Instead of a blanket ban to appease a vocal minority, New Orleans should legalize short-term rentals and allow residents and visitors alike to reap the many benefits while focusing enforcement efforts on the few bad apples by using already existing nuisance laws.

By taking this approach, instead of uniformly branding entrepreneurs as criminals, negatively impacted neighbors can have potential problems addressed while still allowing entrepreneurial New Orleanians the ability to create a more robust housing market. Who wouldn’t enjoy more housing options, fewer vacant and blighted properties, and an additional income stream whenever you need it?

You can show your support for legalization by visiting this petition.

*This post originally appeared at the Institute for Justice, Liberty in Action blog.

Council President Head Reminds Us of Signage Woes

New Orleans City Council President Stacy Head sent out an email this afternoon reminding the community that all it takes is a simple phone call to 311 to report missing or damaged street signs. The text of the email is below.

New Orleans, LA…. Councilmember Head frequently hears from residents that street name and traffic signs are missing in neighborhoods throughout the city. Fortunately, the City’s Sign Shop (Department of Public Works) is hard at work replacing missing traffic and street name signs and in many cases, can replace a reported missing sign within days.

Residents are encouraged to report missing and/or damaged street signs by calling 311 with the exact location and type of sign needed.


Upon receiving this email, I remembered that I dug into the operations of the New Orleans Sign Shop back in 2012. A brief summary of my thoughts is that the city should privatize the shop. While privatization certainly wouldn’t generate a huge windfall for the city budget, it would certainly create an easy source of savings for the future. Hopefully one day this common sense idea can gain some traction in a City Hall serious about cutting costs.

NOLA Council Begins Uber Conversation

On June 24, 2014 the Transportation Committee of the New Orleans City Council met to begin discussions on ordinance changes to the luxury vehicle section of the for-hire vehicle code. The primary changes proposed in the current version of the ordinance updates include: 1) removing the requirement that luxury vehicles (limos, sedans, and SUVs) must be reserved for 3 hours, and 2) changing the minimum required fare structure from $105 to 3x the taxi base fare. The new minimum fares would be $25 for sedans, $35 for SUVs, $75 for trips to/from the airport, and $90 for SUV trips to/from the airport.

In addition, the code would be updated to allow for luxury vehicle companies to use technology, like smartphone apps, to better serve their customers. The taxi code was updated in 2012 to allow taxi companies to use technology. Based on my reading of the current ordinances I don’t see why an update is necessary to allow for this, so I asked representatives in the Mayor’s office for clarification, but have not yet received a response.

Anyway, the headline grabbing piece of this topic is that Uber has requested the city to make changes to the code to allow it to legally operate Uber Black. Uber Black is Uber’s luxury sedan service. As I previously outlined my thoughts on Uber more generally, I’ll limit the remainder of this post to responding to the meeting of June 24.

Ryan Berni, advisor to Mayor Landrieu, started off the meeting by stating that the goal of the city is “to have good transportation options for residents, businesses, and travelers.” Berni went on to say that the city has an obligation to ensure regulations are in place to protect the public. On the surface, these comments sound perfectly reasonable to be coming from the Mayor’s office. However, as the remaining comments during the meeting show, protecting the public is not what will be accomplished by the new ordinance. What will be accomplished is protection of the profits of existing luxury vehicle and taxi companies, at the expense of greater and cheaper options for the public.

According to Mr. Berni, “we need price separation.” In other words, “price separation” means that in order to keep luxury vehicle companies from functioning as taxis and cannibalizing all the taxi business, the city needs to force luxury vehicles to charge higher prices than taxis. Councilmember Head awkwardly requested clarification from Mr. Berni that this did not amount to “price fixing.” While Councilmember Head is technically correct that creating “price separation” does not fit within the definition of “price fixing,” the result is essentially the same. The city, not the market, sets the prices that minimally competing businesses may charge customers, and taxis get to charge lower rates than luxury vehicles so they have a larger customer base to appeal to, and luxury vehicles charge higher prices to appeal to a different, wealthier clientele or serve as a transportation option for special events and occasions.

There are two primary reasons why this arrangement does not serve to protect the public: 1) in general, minimum fares artificially force people to pay more for a service than they otherwise might be able to negotiate; and 2) creating “price separation” limits transportation options for the public.

First, in the absence of minimum fares, customers could negotiate lower prices than allowed by law. Forcing people to pay more than drivers may be willing to charge benefits the bottom line of the vehicle owner, not the customer. Also, to be clear, it is only minimum fares that are being discussed, not maximum fares. The proposed ordinance change removes the ceiling that luxury vehicle companies may charge while setting a floor that they may not go below while negotiating fares. Therefore, minimum fares benefit the vehicle companies, not their customers.

Second, price separation that sets a higher minimum fare limits options for people looking for transportation. If someone can’t afford the legally required minimum fare, they must look elsewhere for a ride. In contrast, if there were no required minimum fare, a vehicle company that is willing to accept a lower fare rather than have no business at all would result in the customer having a ride and the company having a paying customer. Further, minimum fares reduce competition which only further reduces the number of available options. If a new vehicle company is attempting to enter the market, one of the easier methods of acquiring business is to charge lower prices than the existing companies. Since the new business does not yet have name recognition or a reputation, the lower prices they offer allow them to compete immediately. However, if there is a legally required minimum fare, the new company cannot charge less to entice customers, thus fewer new companies are likely to emerge. This result is even more likely to occur in the case of individual entrepreneurs who are considering entering the market with a single vehicle or two.

A brief note on that last point. The current ordinance requires a luxury vehicle company to have at least 2 vehicles. This requirement also does not serve the interests of the public. Instead, it limits competition while benefiting large vehicle companies. If I’m an individual entrepreneur (assume I have acquired the necessary licenses and insurance) who would like to earn some extra money on the weekend by providing rides in a sedan, but the law requires me to own 2 sedans before I may open for business, this arbitrarily limits the number of people who may operate as luxury vehicle companies to those who can either afford to purchase at least 2 vehicles instead of just 1, or to those who are able to access financing for an additional vehicle. In any event, Joe Entrepreneur who has no use for a second vehicle because he can only drive one at a time is left looking for other options for extra cash, and the public is left relying on the larger companies to offer enough vehicles to meet the demand.

In addition, when the minimum fare structure is combined with the 2 vehicle requirement, not only is competition on prices and the number of available vehicles limited, but a barrier to entry is raised for those seeking employment. So, what we’re left with is this: luxury vehicle companies with enough resources to acquire at least 2 vehicles do not have to worry about competitors with a single vehicle charging less than them, and taxi companies don’t have to worry about luxury vehicles charging the same price as a taxi but offering a ride in a nicer vehicle. What about this “legal” arrangement is actually serving the public instead of the interests of the current 20 luxury vehicle companies and the taxi companies?

This is exactly what I meant when I said other motivations are at play than protecting the public. Fortunately, if my above analysis of the dynamics at play isn’t enough, one need only listen to the comments during the June 24 meeting by those in the for-hire vehicle industry to see that they openly advocate for the city to protect their businesses from competition:

Michael Brinks of the Greater New Orleans Limousine Association said that they need the city to protect their ability to charge higher fares.

Chris Bonomolo of Bonomolo Limousines implored the City Council to consider the impact of ordinance updates on the well being of limo drivers. Nevermind the fact that when directly questioned by the Council, Mr. Bonomolo was unable to provide any specifics on how his employees would be harmed.

A representative from Alert Transportation voiced his opposition from having fares lowered because without the legally required minimum fares, it makes it difficult for his business to stay viable.

Mike Wetzel of Big Easy Limos was more explicit when he directly stated that limo companies can’t compete with taxi prices and if competitors are allowed to charge less than the current minimums his company could be put out of business.

Sheree Kerner of Nawlins Cab was concerned that the “price surging” practice of Uber’s ridesharing product, UberX, was synonymous with price “gouging,” yet somehow failed to realize the illogic of her comment when she went on to say that if UberX is allowed to operate in New Orleans, cab companies will be left to serve only non-Uber users and will require subsidies from the city to stay in business. If “price surging” is so bad for customers, Ms. Kerner, why would all the Uber users continue to exclusively use Uber at the expense of cab companies?

The comments go on, but I believe the point is clear. While paying lip service to concerns for the public based on overblown statements of their being less transportation options if the existing companies are actually forced to compete on things like fares, the true concerns of the companies are clear. They need the city to protect them from competition or they might go out of business, or they might have to lay people off, or they might profit less. I suppose you could make the argument that businesses closing, layoffs, and lower profits result in harm to the public. However, where could the line possibly be drawn if protecting the public is now defined as protecting existing businesses from having to function in the world of business? Unless you are a company that is fortunate enough to operate in an industry that can acquire government protection, you are forced to actually compete with other businesses to attract customers. None of the above comments reflect the motivation to serve and attract the people of New Orleans and her visitors.

I realize that this is yet another example of business as usual in New Orleans politics. However, these vehicle companies should be ashamed of themselves for thinking that it is the responsibility of the elected representatives for the people of New Orleans to protect the businesses from competition at the expense of their customers.

The provisions of the current proposed ordinance that remove the 3 hour reservation requirement and explicitly allow vehicle companies to implement technology are improvements that benefit the public. The provisions that maintain minimum fares and the 2 vehicle requirement only serve the interests of the companies. Hopefully, the members of the council, and the members of the public will begin to see the vehicle companies’ claims for what they truly are: self-serving rent seeking and the refusal to compete and adapt to the changing nature of transportation. Whether they like it or not, companies like Uber are not going to disappear. Instead, if existing vehicle companies continue to view their customers as a commodity that they are entitled to by force of law, then we should expect to see competitors like Uber proliferate.