Is it okay to VRBO in San Franciso?
May 7th, 2014, 05:52 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it okay to VRBO in San Franciso?
We are headed to SF for a long weekend and our VRBO in the Marina District fell through. We have found availability in the following areas: Russian Hill. Sunset near Golden Gate Park, Noe Valley, Richmond near the beach and Alamo Square. We have these places selected because we think they meet our space, price, parking and location needs. We have been struggling with choosing one because we don't know how long it takes to get around SF, the micro climates, safety, and issues like parking ( It's hard for us to understand why a place on the beach which we hear is cold and foggy--is less desirable than a place where you have to move your car every 2-3 hours.) we found some people telling us VRBO is illegal in SF. We have read a lot on the forums here but were hoping to get advice on what is going on NOW in this area and if it is safe to rent this way. We have had great success with VRBO in the past in other areas. We need some sage advice from those of you who live there or have spent a lot of time there. We want to see the tourist spots in and around the city (we will be coming from Sequoia, Kings Canyon and Yosemite so mostly looking closer into SF), fit in a ballgame, go to Alcatraz, Chinatown, Japantown etc. We want to keep our car so we can see things like Berkley, Muir Woods, Sausalito, Marin County or whatever we have time to see. I have tagged a lot of places to see but mostly I am concerned about where to stay. We are a family of 5. One hotel room isn't going to be enough for us. Thanks!
May 7th, 2014, 06:12 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're are "renting" through VRBO in Milwaukee in June. The owners will let us use the 2 rooms and kitchen and they will be there. They already contacted us and we made arrangements.
So across the board statement that "it's illegal" is totally wrong. We will be visitors in their condo, nothing more nothing less.
Can't tell you about SF.
So across the board statement that "it's illegal" is totally wrong. We will be visitors in their condo, nothing more nothing less.
Can't tell you about SF.
May 7th, 2014, 07:24 AM
#4
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legality is based on local ordinances. SF is one of the places (along with NYC) where short-term sublets are illegal.
Have no clue about Milwaukee or a million other places. The OP asked about SF.
Have no clue about Milwaukee or a million other places. The OP asked about SF.
May 7th, 2014, 08:13 AM
#6
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 10,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VRBO itself is not illegal (nor is AirBnB) anywhere, so it's somewhat misleading to say that. But short-term apartment sublets for less than 30 days are illegal in San Francisco, and that covers a large number of VRBO and AirBnB rentals).
However, I don't believe that the right to have a roommate is enshrined in the law in San Francisco, so I can't say if it's illegal to rent a room in an otherwise occupied apartment, as AAFrequentFlyer is doing in Milwaukee. So while it's not "totally wrong" to say that VRBO is illegal in San Francisco, the statement requires some clarification.
The situation in San Francisco is similar in New York City and Paris (well, to be specific, in Paris it's actually illegal to sublet an apartment for less than a year).
However, I don't believe that the right to have a roommate is enshrined in the law in San Francisco, so I can't say if it's illegal to rent a room in an otherwise occupied apartment, as AAFrequentFlyer is doing in Milwaukee. So while it's not "totally wrong" to say that VRBO is illegal in San Francisco, the statement requires some clarification.
The situation in San Francisco is similar in New York City and Paris (well, to be specific, in Paris it's actually illegal to sublet an apartment for less than a year).
May 7th, 2014, 08:15 AM
#7
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vjp's understanding related to the OP's question: is it ok in SF.
The answer is that if you are seeking a short-term apartment rental in San Francisco, the people offering the apartment are doing so illegally and therefore you will have no recourse if you get screwed. This is because breaching an illegal contract is not actionable (think of someone suing a hitman for failing to carry out the hit).
The answer is that if you are seeking a short-term apartment rental in San Francisco, the people offering the apartment are doing so illegally and therefore you will have no recourse if you get screwed. This is because breaching an illegal contract is not actionable (think of someone suing a hitman for failing to carry out the hit).
May 7th, 2014, 08:21 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more time
So across the board statement that "it's illegal" is totally wrong. We will be visitors in their condo, nothing more nothing less.
and then,
Can't tell you about SF
which part some of you don't get?
So across the board statement that "it's illegal" is totally wrong. We will be visitors in their condo, nothing more nothing less.
and then,
Can't tell you about SF
which part some of you don't get?
May 7th, 2014, 08:27 AM
#10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visitors don't pay. Subletting (allowing other people to live there for money versus occupancy by the legitimate tenant) short-term is illegal in NYC - and apparently in SF. Calling subletters "visitors" - unless they are relatives or friends who are staying without paying won't fly - if a neighbor complains for instance.
May 7th, 2014, 08:33 AM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling subletters "visitors" - unless they are relatives or friends who are staying without paying won't fly - if a neighbor complains for instance.
and how will the neighbors know? The owers will be there and we are "visiting". Who is to say that we're not family or friends?
and how will the neighbors know? The owers will be there and we are "visiting". Who is to say that we're not family or friends?
May 8th, 2014, 06:18 AM
#13
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of stuff in the local SF news and various "chat rooms" about short term rentals. Two owners/landlords were recently indited, and I assume any people with reservations in their places will be outa-luck. We just returned from NYC where we rented an illegal place - and so did about another dozen people in the same building we were in. Same for our 5 stays in Paris. I guess these latter cities are not actively enforcing their laws. San Francisco is starting to enforce the laws because we have a terrible shortage of rental apartments, and lots of people on the Board of Supervisors are running for re-election or election to another office - so laws are being proposed/passed and DAs are actively seeking out "criminals" to indict. I would be very scared about a short term rental now.
Regarding your locations.
The Noe Valley would be a great location. It's our favorite neighborhood in The City (it's where we used to live). The J-Church Muni Metro will get you downtown in 20-30 mins, and there are plenty of buses to take you elsewhere. Lots of restaurants, cafes, pizza places, & shops on 24th St, and along Church St too. There is a Whole Foods on 24th and a weekly farmer's market on 24th. There are some blocks that have 2-3 hr limited parking, but there are more blocks that don't. We've never had problems parking there for long durations (better luck west of Church St). There is also a playground on 30th St & Sanchez and a few other parks scattered around. Some areas of the Noe Valley can be quite hilly, and because Noe Valley is extremely popular with the Techies who have lots of money, landlords are expanding the area they call the Noe Valley when their place might actually be in the Mission, Twin Peaks, or Castro/Eureka Valley.
Russian Hill would be another good location - but just about anywhere around there is very hilly. Most everything is 2-3 hr max parking. Alamo Square is another good location, flat, good public transportation, lots of restaurants on Divisadero - but no "destination" restaurants. It MAY have some non-2-3 hr parking areas.
I would not stay in the Sunset (I was born there) or the Richmond - for many reasons.
Stu Dudley
Regarding your locations.
The Noe Valley would be a great location. It's our favorite neighborhood in The City (it's where we used to live). The J-Church Muni Metro will get you downtown in 20-30 mins, and there are plenty of buses to take you elsewhere. Lots of restaurants, cafes, pizza places, & shops on 24th St, and along Church St too. There is a Whole Foods on 24th and a weekly farmer's market on 24th. There are some blocks that have 2-3 hr limited parking, but there are more blocks that don't. We've never had problems parking there for long durations (better luck west of Church St). There is also a playground on 30th St & Sanchez and a few other parks scattered around. Some areas of the Noe Valley can be quite hilly, and because Noe Valley is extremely popular with the Techies who have lots of money, landlords are expanding the area they call the Noe Valley when their place might actually be in the Mission, Twin Peaks, or Castro/Eureka Valley.
Russian Hill would be another good location - but just about anywhere around there is very hilly. Most everything is 2-3 hr max parking. Alamo Square is another good location, flat, good public transportation, lots of restaurants on Divisadero - but no "destination" restaurants. It MAY have some non-2-3 hr parking areas.
I would not stay in the Sunset (I was born there) or the Richmond - for many reasons.
Stu Dudley
May 8th, 2014, 08:00 AM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's ignore AAFF's rantings because vjp's answer was obviously directed toward San Francisco, as was the OP's question.
The answer for San Francisco is that subletting an apartment for less than 30 days without obtaining a hotel/B&B (whatever the city calls it) license is illegal. The transaction can occur but if you undertake it, then (1) you are participating in an illegal activity and the city authorities are within their rights to remove you from the premises, (2) you have no recourse against the owner/lessor of the apartment for any breach of the rental contract.
Simple as that.
Stay in a vrbo offering outside the city or get a hotel.
The answer for San Francisco is that subletting an apartment for less than 30 days without obtaining a hotel/B&B (whatever the city calls it) license is illegal. The transaction can occur but if you undertake it, then (1) you are participating in an illegal activity and the city authorities are within their rights to remove you from the premises, (2) you have no recourse against the owner/lessor of the apartment for any breach of the rental contract.
Simple as that.
Stay in a vrbo offering outside the city or get a hotel.
May 8th, 2014, 09:45 AM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, not to muddy this road further, but...
If the VRBO rental is represented by a realtor or leasing agent, does that change anything? I'm not saying it does, just asking. When we got a VRBO place at the beach in FL--yes, totally different, but bear with me--it was repped by a realtor whom we met to get the keys and sign a rental agreement.
So in SF, if you find a VRBO listing like that, does a real estate professional's participation mean anything, like that it's legal?
If the VRBO rental is represented by a realtor or leasing agent, does that change anything? I'm not saying it does, just asking. When we got a VRBO place at the beach in FL--yes, totally different, but bear with me--it was repped by a realtor whom we met to get the keys and sign a rental agreement.
So in SF, if you find a VRBO listing like that, does a real estate professional's participation mean anything, like that it's legal?
May 8th, 2014, 10:05 AM
#17
I rent my guest room through Airbnb sometimes. It's legal in this part of California to do it but county law requires that we collect and pay a 10% short-term rental (less than 30 days) tax. I add it to my rate and collect it, report and pay the tax but I suspect most don't, and currently, no repercussions. For my own peace of mind, I comply, knowing I won't be caught up with later and get a big bill, more painful than complying as I go. I don't like it but I do it.
My point? In San Francisco it's illegal to rent a residence (not a licensed establishment) for less than 30 days. Period. So, as with hosts and the tax here, most will continue and not be caught for now, despite the law. Calling them cousins changes nothing. I think the law is wrong but, for now, it's the law. So if hosts continue, they're breaking the law, and while they probably won't get caught, like driving over the speed limit, yours might be the unlucky one that is. If your peace-of-mind threshold exceeds mine, then go ahead, take a chance. Personally, I wouldn't want to think about it and I'd find another option.
My point? In San Francisco it's illegal to rent a residence (not a licensed establishment) for less than 30 days. Period. So, as with hosts and the tax here, most will continue and not be caught for now, despite the law. Calling them cousins changes nothing. I think the law is wrong but, for now, it's the law. So if hosts continue, they're breaking the law, and while they probably won't get caught, like driving over the speed limit, yours might be the unlucky one that is. If your peace-of-mind threshold exceeds mine, then go ahead, take a chance. Personally, I wouldn't want to think about it and I'd find another option.
May 8th, 2014, 10:14 AM
#18
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 10,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A realtor's involvement does not make an AirBnB listing legal in San Francisco or NYC.
As you point out, it's a completely different situation in Florida, where rentals for less than 30 days are not generally prohibited, though I'm not saying there aren't individual communities where such prohibitions exist ... I'm just not aware of any. The same thing is true in Hawaii, another popular resort destinations. The prohibition applies primarily to cities (in the U.S. at least).
As you point out, it's a completely different situation in Florida, where rentals for less than 30 days are not generally prohibited, though I'm not saying there aren't individual communities where such prohibitions exist ... I'm just not aware of any. The same thing is true in Hawaii, another popular resort destinations. The prohibition applies primarily to cities (in the U.S. at least).
May 8th, 2014, 10:52 AM
#19
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also applies to many co-ops and condos - although condos in some places are more open.
Generally people buy into co-ops because they are looking for a level of comfort and security with their co-owners which is destroyed by having random people wandering through the building. Most are set up to support long-term residents only - not people that want to buy and flip either (co-op fees for doing this short-term from purchase help discourage this).
Many (most?) condos operate the same way. There are also some (not a whole lot) that have more flexible rules - so transients are less likely to cause complaints and/or bad feeling among permanent residents.
Obviously each traveler has to decide for themselves if they are comfortable breaking this law - as long as they are aware that they are doing so.
My gripe with the web sites offering short-term sublets is that they don't make these laws clear on any property being offered for tent in these locations.
Generally people buy into co-ops because they are looking for a level of comfort and security with their co-owners which is destroyed by having random people wandering through the building. Most are set up to support long-term residents only - not people that want to buy and flip either (co-op fees for doing this short-term from purchase help discourage this).
Many (most?) condos operate the same way. There are also some (not a whole lot) that have more flexible rules - so transients are less likely to cause complaints and/or bad feeling among permanent residents.
Obviously each traveler has to decide for themselves if they are comfortable breaking this law - as long as they are aware that they are doing so.
My gripe with the web sites offering short-term sublets is that they don't make these laws clear on any property being offered for tent in these locations.
May 8th, 2014, 11:12 AM
#20
"...the web sites... don't make these laws clear..."
I don't think the site can be expected to know laws in thousands of locations. But we, and the site, can expect the owners/renters of places offered to know the laws before they list the place. I don't fault the site as much as those willing to take a chance. Some in SF are finding eviction is what they pay for giving it a try.
Airbnb has been working with communities to change the laws where it's practical to do so, or clarifying, to avoid difficulties.
I don't think the site can be expected to know laws in thousands of locations. But we, and the site, can expect the owners/renters of places offered to know the laws before they list the place. I don't fault the site as much as those willing to take a chance. Some in SF are finding eviction is what they pay for giving it a try.
Airbnb has been working with communities to change the laws where it's practical to do so, or clarifying, to avoid difficulties.
