Proposed L.A. Ordinance Would Require Airbnb Hosts To Get Police Permission To Operate
The regulation is part of a suite of new restrictions on hotels sought by the local hotel workers union.

Los Angeles Airbnb hosts would need permission from the police to do business under an ordinance being considered by the Los Angeles City Council.
A "responsible hotel" ordinance that earned the unanimous support of the council Tuesday would require hotel and short-term rental operators to obtain a police permit each year to do business. Getting that permit, in turn, would require a criminal background check, the payment of fees totaling hundreds of dollars, and possibly submitting fingerprints to the police.
The new regulations come as part of a "compromise" between hotel owners and the hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11, which has been engaged in strikes against individual hotels over this past year.
One of the union's demands had been that hotel owners support an initiative the union placed on the Los Angeles city ballot in March 2024 that, if passed, would require hotels to give vacant rooms to the homeless.
In exchange for the passage of Tuesday's ordinance, the union has agreed to pull that initiative from the ballot.
The bulk of the Responsible Hotel Ordinance layers additional regulations on new hotel developments.
It requires that city planning officials, before issuing permits for new hotels, study how the new hotel's employees will impact housing, public transit, and child care services.
Per the ordinance, city planning officials will also have to produce findings on whether the new hotel is hiring from the surrounding neighborhood as a means of reducing additional traffic, whether it's agreed to support nearby small businesses, whether it encourages its employees to ride transit or bike to work, and whether the hotel will negatively impact affordable and rent-controlled housing.
The findings of city planning officials can also be appealed up to the city council, giving it a direct role in approving individual hotel projects. As with similar discretionary approval processes, these new permitting procedures will give third parties greater ability to wring concessions out of the sponsors of new hotel projects.
Short-term rental hosts, who've largely been on the sidelines in that fight, are coming out in strong opposition to the police permitting requirement.
"Subjecting these hosts to further permitting, mandatory fingerprinting, and additional fees is not equitable in practice as it discourages more residents from becoming hosts, impacting economic opportunities available to residents less willing to interact with LAPD," said James Privette, director of civic innovation policy at Chamber of Progress, a tech business trade association, in a comment to the Los Angeles City Council.
A Los Angeles Police Department representative told the city council during Tuesday's hearing that the police permitting requirement for short-term rentals would triple its permitting workload, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Some councilmembers, while supporting the permits, have said they'd consider ways to lower fee costs and avoid fingerprinting requirements, reported the Times.
A motion introduced by Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson also asked the city to examine alternatives to requiring short-term rental owners to obtain police permits.
The city council will vote again on the Responsible Hotel Ordinance on Friday.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How dare they treat landowners like gun owners!!!
'....Forget it Jake.....It's California.....'
"The new regulations come as part of a "compromise" between hotel owners and the hotel workers union"
So, let me get this straight. Two separate 3rd parties get to make a deal among just themselves about what an entirely different individual or entity must do. Sounds fair.
Bill and Tom get together while Jim is away and decide that Jim must be required to buy their lunch.
Two separate 3rd parties get to make a deal among just themselves about what an entirely different individual or entity must do. Sounds fair.
Have you been living under a rock? That's how most of government works, starting with the compromises between the recipients of government handouts and politicians about how much of other people's money to give away.
No, I just think it's worth pointing out from time to time how absurd it is.
"Under the new deal between Apple and Microsoft, Google must provide free ponies with the purchase of every smartphone, on all 3 platforms."
But you make it sound like this is some kind of occasional glitch in our system of government.
This is the very basis of current Western democracy; it's what universal suffrage and the social welfare state are intended to deliver, on purpose, deliberately, every day and with every law. US and European voters apparently have no problem with it.
It isn't though. Hotel owners and unions shouldn't be able to dictate what laws are passed or even considered in city council, congress, or any level of government. If you and I decided upon a proposed rule, we wouldn't just be able to tell our local board to 'Make it So'.
The process should be the same for everyone, but our system has been captured by special interests.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told by lawyers that if you grab a random book of laws and open to a random page, you'll probably find some economic carveout for a favored interest. Maybe they were full of it. I dunno.
Point being that if that's true, then NOYB2 is talking about what is instead of what should be.
In Seattle, Unions have written a huge amount of legislation that is literally handed over to city council members in three ring binders, and then voted on by the council. Literally, and the local press is completely uninterested in this as a topic of capture or corruption.
Then you have Chicago where the teachers union took over the mayor's office.
It's undesirable, but I don't see how this is "capture" or "corruption".
James Madison warned about this in Federalist No. 10, but Americans threw that all away at the end of the 19th century.
This is our system of government now, working according to the intentions and reforms of the progressive movement.
but our system has been captured by special interests.
Our system hasn't been "captured by special interests", this is how progressive social welfare states with universal suffrage inevitably function. The power of unrelated groups to dictate to each other what to do is at the core of our system of government and is something Americans nearly universally approve of.
It's a bad system. But you aren't going to get rid of a bad system if you misdiagnose the problem. In fact, "special interests made us do it" is the perennial excuse proponents of this system give for maintaining it, because it shifts the discussion from the fundamental design flaw of the system to blaming some nebulous enemy.
What’s the opposite of, or solution to, “progressive social welfare states with universal suffrage”?
There are many better, less authoritarian forms of government. Generally, anything that reduces the power of the state to forcibly take property or hand out benefits is an improvement.
Yes, this is what's known as "democracy".
Bill and Tom get together while Jim is away and decide that Jim must be required to buy their lunch.
And Elizabeth says, "You guys can't do that, it violates the Bill of Rights of the Internet!"
Proposed L.A. Ordinance Would Require Airbnb Hosts To Get Police Permission To Operate
Libertarians should be enthusiastic about everything LA and California can do to destroy themselves and reduce tourism to that place.
So, in that spirit, I support this legislation.
Lefties who imagine themselves as "liberals" always manage to be totalitarian assholes.
…suite of new restrictions…
+ 2 points
Glad the Left does not have blatantly obvious fascist tendencies.
""Subjecting these hosts to further permitting, mandatory fingerprinting, and additional fees is not equitable in practice as it discourages more residents from becoming hosts, impacting economic opportunities available to residents less willing to interact with LAPD," said James Privette, director of civic innovation policy at Chamber of Progress, a tech business trade association, in a comment to the Los Angeles City Council."
That's an interesting way to describe the Chamber of Progress.
THEY describe themselves as "Chamber of Progress is a new tech industry coalition devoted to a progressive society, economy, workforce, and consumer climate."
Why leave THAT out?
Because it seems Mr. Privette is bitching about policies he SUPPORTS.
Fuck him. Eat shit, dipshit. Hope your masters' jackboots forever stomping on your face feels good, fucking idiot.
I would describe that as The Chamber of Poverty. But Democrats believe that economic realism is hate speech...
It just shows that the Unions own the Government of California on all levels.