NeoPatrick

I was browsing on Craigslist for one week apartment rentals in SF. I couldn't seem to find any within the city. Then I saw this ad. I guess they are really cracking down on those rentals. Too bad, I've rented a couple that were wonderful -- one an "attic apartment of a private house" and another a nice apartment in a duplex.

sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/vac/764217696.html

LoveItaly

Hi Patrick, when I clicked on the website you posted it read that it had been flagged for removal.

NeoPatrick

Yes. I see. Basically it was quite official, asking residents of San Francisco to take pictures, record license plates, and keep records of "transients" renting apartments for short periods of time in SF. It even gave the name and number of the person in the city government to contact regarding this -- and suggested that those who rent out apartments "illegally" will be fined. It also asked people to flag ads for short term or vacation rentals on Craigslist so they would be removed. Apparently some listers whose ads were flagged and removed also flagged this ad.

I went to VRBO and a number of listings I've seen before (including that one I rented) are no longer there. I really don't know what the laws are about short term rentals in SF, especially in private homes or from condominiums.

kleroux

Maybe you would have more success if you go through an agency. Maybe its the by owner listings that are being removed. I'd certainly try some of the big real estate agencies, like Sotherby's and see if they have a vacation rental department, or can tell you who does.

NeoPatrick

Sotheby's? Sorry, I was browsing more for a $1000 a week rental apt, not a $3000 or more one. In the past I've tried to browse for short term rentals in SF, and the agencies pretty much were also limited to one month minimums -- and more often three month minimums. I think I recall that Sotheby's and similar realtors do not deal with one week rentals.

I doubt this will happen anyway. I'm just looking at needing to make a last minute trip to California for a funeral, and thought we might add a week or more of "vacation" while there -- but without spending a fortune.

But you bring up an interesting point, kleroux. If it is indeed illegal to rent an apartment out for a week in SF, then I suspect they (those posting the ad I referred to) would report one done through an agency just as quickly as one through a private owner. No!

nytraveler

Listings by owner aren't the problem. If you own a house you can do what you want - unless you're in agated community with specific rules.

But obviously if you own a condo the associatin may ban short-term rentals. And if you rent an apartment you can;t do any sort of sublet without the owner's okay - which they often don;t want to give for obvious reasons.

NeoPatrick

hmmm. That I understand, but that's not what this "warning" was. It was simply saying that "short term rentals in San Francisco are illegal and a violation of city codes." Maybe that isn't true -- but that was sure the thrust of the message.

lolfn

Our town has a law against rentals shorter than 4 months unless you have a B&B or special rental license. So these kind of rules certainly aren't related to just properties with HOAs.

kayd

There are quite a few things a city (not just a condo or co-op) may bar a homeowner from doing with his property -- keeping farm animals, operating certain kinds of businesses, etc. Offering short term rentals could be considered one of those business uses that is not allowed in city code or zoning.

If people are determied to continue to offer short term rentals, perhaps the city should require a business license and collect approprite fees and taxes. That would be a win for everyone -- owners, renters, and the city coffers. (Though the owners would gripe about the taxes and the renters would end up paying more.)

LoveItaly

Good morning Patrick, well guess it is good afternoon for you.

I haven't read anything about SF banning short term rentals but every time one turns around the city leaders are banning something else so I am not surprised.

Dukey

Could it BE that the banning of short-term rentals in SFO and anywhere else might have been influenced (gasp!!!) by the local HOTEL/hospitality association????????

FainaAgain

Here is one with weekly discount, good location, found by Googling

http://www.corporatehousingbyowner.com/2144

FainaAgain

On this website price is not listed, only apartments available

http://www.sanfranciscofurnishedrentals.com/

RBCal

The post on craigslist was likely by someone upset by their rent controlled apartment becoming a vacation rental. I doubt the city will do anything about an owner renting out their personal house or condo as a vacation rental.

NeoPatrick

Thanks Faina, those apartments look interesting but again -- they have a 30 day minimum!

FainaAgain

OUCH! The way they were presented, I thought they are daily or weekly. Sorry, my mistake.

SAB

There was an article in the SF Chronicle this May about vacation rentals in SF and it made no mention whatsoever about cracking down on owners. Indeed it stated that urban vacation rentals were a booming business and way for owners to avoid "the complications of rental control." I think if there was an ordinance or rental control provision regulating such rentals it would have been mentioned.

NeoPatrick

I suspect that you are right, SAB. Sounds more like "scare tactics" by someone losing business. But I just checked and the "warning" has been posted again. Since it will probably be flagged and removed again, here it is:

"STAY AWAY From VACATION RENTALS In RESIDENTIAL San Francisco areas! (San Francisco)
Reply to: [email protected]
Date: 2008-07-22, 2:06PM PDT


If you plan on visiting San Francisco, stay away from vacation rentals! Especially IF THEY ARE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS! First, if you rent one of these units, and it is less than 30 days, IT IS AN ILLEGAL RENTAL within the City of San Francisco. The Planning and Zoning Department Cites and Fines these units and it would be horrible if you were to have your entire vacation ruined by having to find a new place to stay while you are here and not getting a good hotel rate because you are forced to buy hotel rooms on the spot! These units are so controversial in San Francisco right now, it would be best to simply stay away from them all together. When people get to their destinations and are told they had no reservations and could not get their money back. Some even wrote their own compliments on the site and got caught doing it by a web master when the computer address came from the same person whom opened the illegal account. It makes you wonder, if they rent the properties out illegal, where will they stop?"

mlgb

San Francisco probably did not adopt any new laws. If someone is renting their homee for less than 30 days in a residential district they just cite them for having an illegal hotel operation in a residential zone. Plus they're probably also in trouble for not paying transient occupancy tax.

Like most other code enforcement issues, it's usually a problem only if someone (like a neighbor or evicted tenant!) complains.

I'm not so sure I'd want someone running a hotel next to my house, either.

NewbE

I imagine, too, that someone renting out an otherwise vacant house or unit week after week would be much more likely to annoy the neighbors and attract unwanted attention than someone renting out their own home here and there. I guess I don't get why the Craig's list poster is wasting his time there instead of just calling the city incessantly--wouldn't it be much easier to "crack down on" the owners than to try to dissuade masses of would-be renters?