> But then, this really is not the place for a legal discussion, it's rude to hijack a thread in such a manner.

Would you care to compare OT posts, clown?

> Zoning has long defined transient lodging (boarding or rooming house), hotel, B&B vs permanent residential, fdecarlo.

I was aware of that, for commercial businesses. I'm asking about private residential property.

Obviously zoning can ban commercial uses, in residential zones, LOL>

I won't respond further to him since he's obviously got an agenda (or more than one).

> Obviously zoning can ban commercial uses, in residential zones, LOL>

Obviously. That wasn't my question.

> I won't respond further to him since he's obviously got an agenda (or more than one).

No need to, as I've answered my own question. These bans have been thrown out in, as far as I've read, every single case where they've been legally challenged, e.g.:

http://www.stradvocacy.org/another-s...-term-rentals/

http://miamibeachpropertyrights.blog...ental-ban.html

http://www.heraldtribune.com/assets/pdf/SH214941111.PDF

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

So far I'm up to 14 bans overturned, zero upheld.

According to your article the city paid off three lawsuits in order to proceed with their ban. If you wish to make a gentleman's wager, imo their new ordinance will be sued out of existence the first time it's challenged, like all the others.

Today a friend pointed out that some college cities in our country actually mandate that short-term rentals be an option in housing contracts, and to date nobody has ever challenged these ordinances legally. IMO there would be no practical reason to, because good tenants are good regardless of how long they stay at a property, and bad tenants are bad also regardless of how long they stay. That's why imo these bans are not only unconstitutional but practically pointless. Virtually all problems erroneously blamed on short-term rentals are in fact due to tenant quality and not length of stay.

I really don't know why I'm prolonging this (sorry OP), but legal bans on short-term rentals have nothing to do with quality of tenant and everything to do with taking rental housing stock off the market.

The Santa Monica Pier might be (no wait, it is) the most overrated thing to do in Los Angeles. The good thing...you'll only need about 15 minutes until you want to leave. Here's a list I've compiled of things to do...mostly inSouthern California and the Los Angeles area.

<B>http://travelswithmaitaitom.com/california-dreaming-1/</B>

((H))

> I really don't know why I'm prolonging this (sorry OP), but legal bans on short-term rentals have nothing to do with quality of tenant and everything to do with taking rental housing stock off the market.

It's not the government right or place to dictate rental inventories for privately owned residential property. It's precisely why the bans can't and won't survive legal challenges.

Ditto the comment about prolonging this. Simply watch and learn.

Why do you insist on dragging this thread off topic. Whether bans survive some future court appeals has NO bearing on the OP's vacation.

Go to the Lounge if you want to argue the issue -- not on Lynn's thread.

I agree, this thread has gone badly off track, we need to hear from Lynn (if she hasn't been scared off) to try and provide more helpful advice.
Take it to the Lounge, fdecarlo

Point noted, although I claim it as at least partially on-topic, since the issue of short-term rental bans was not raised by me.

>>although I claim it as at least partially on-topic, << . . . It ain't.

Whether you agree w/ short term rental bans is not relevant to where these travelers stay. One comment - fine. But you have posted eight times basically saying the same thing. That is pretty much hijacking a thread.

@Lynn412 - I'm sorry that you're not getting a lot of helpful answers to your question. I would say the link that @maitaitom suggested is really thorough and helpful. I would definitely consider the places they suggest. I would agree too that Santa Monica Pier is incredibly overrated. If you're still checking this thread, please let us know what your group is interested in doing, what you aren't interested in, and some food preferences. I can suggest some other places that locals like to visit and popular local eat/drink places. (Good coffee, bars, restaurants, etc). It all depends on what type of trip you guys want to have. :)

> That is pretty much hijacking a thread.

Agreed. That was the point noted part. :)

I third (or fourth) the advice to steer clear of the pier and head north not south. Maybe that last part is just me.

Zoning laws can include all sorts of things including:

Mandating single family residences only
Mandating the number of unrelated adults living in a property (often max of 3)
Mandating length of rentals
Mandating off-street parking only

Plus anyplace with a HOA can have any sort of rules they want.

I don't think Santa Monica Pier is overrated, especially if you've never seen the Pacific Ocean before. It's a good starting point for a walk on the boardwalk or bike ride to Venice Beach, lots of good dining nearby, shopping for souvenirs, a good introduction to California beach lifestyle. No way that I would remove it from an itinerary with teenagers. Maybe Tom & Leejoy assumed they were going to just walk the pier and then leave the area, that's it? I dunno.

Clarkgriswold makes a good point. It's a good starting point for a walk on the boardwalk. I would recommend just stopping by for a few minutes. Then make your way to a bike rental shop. There are many scattered along the coast. There's a great bike route along the coast. It's a fun and beautiful route. From there, I would stop by 3rd Street Promenade, which has many shops and restaurants.

I am mystified by Sarahava's comments all over these boards; a new member, just saying bizarre things about places she can't ever have visited.
Is there a reward for number of posts? The motive here is puzzling.