(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers.)

Dear sir,

Unintended consequences of new anti-short term rental B&B ordinance

The city needs more affordable housing, maybe fewer ‘luxury condos’ and also some short term rental. Pre-Airbnb short term rentals (STRs) were the domain of hotels and B&Bs. Somerville has never had too many hotels nor B&Bs, a problem that we share with Boston itself.

According to city data there are some 33,642 residential units in Somerville and 267 (.08%) are STRs. Currently a minor fraction.

The purpose of the new ordinance, we are told, is to reduce the trend of converting affordable rentals into STRs. A noble endeavor. Especially targeting commercial entities that seek to do this for quick profit and in so doing reduce available affordable units. But there is an issue that seemingly has not been fully thought out.

Take the instance where a couple of long term Somervillians, who are now seniors, need to augment their Social Security and meagre savings by allowing visitors a short term rental in the property in which they have lived for many years. And several years ago (before the issues was even in the imagination of the city council) they invested in such a property. They engaged legal advice, and ensured conformity to building codes through inspectional services and complied with zoning. Their savings were invested in such a move after their due diligence.

Then the city changes the rules, meaning that the investment made cannot be leveraged to enable a pay-back and an income augmenting profit. What are the options?  There is no grandfather clause in the new ordinance that will enable these long term residents, who followed all the rules to continue. They did everything right and were100% legal. What is the probable impact?

1. a) The long term residents who now have less arable discretionary money and higher costs may be forced to sell and move. I have had this fear expressed to me directly.
2. b) A developer buys the property and turns it into ‘Luxury Condos’ with no affordability content anyway because the property would be under the minimum inclusionary threshold.

The effect is dramatic and contra to the goal of the ordinance. No new affordable housing is developed. Long term residents have to leave their city. More ‘Luxury condos’ in the mix.

What is the gain to the city?

It would seem to make sense that given these unforeseen consequences have such a damaging impact on some of our fellow citizens that a grandfather clause for long term residents to continue as they have been doing, could be appended to the ordinance. To limit the number of days a STR could be provided annually does not make sense. A grandfather clause would make sense and the ordinance would have a better chance to meet its (stated) goals. That this was not considered is somewhat sad given that many of those who now suffer the impact were not (it would seem) fully engaged by city lawmakers in the process. But it is not too late. Please city councilors, fix this one.

Alan Bingham

Somerville