oh for fucks sake, how did this get to a department of planning issue? Part of the Condo Association Agreement should have stipulated leasing rules.
Well, they evidently didn't or, if they did, they were at odds with this funny thing they call the LAW.
What kind of crackerjacks buy and sell property in this town?
Jonah. Dude. Proof read. Please.
also I was looking for a more thorough explanation than your glib and anti-informative answer, Mr. X. You seem to know a lot about development in this town and your answer doesn't reflect that.
If I remember correctly, the upset condo residents and the condo hoteliers couldn't agree on what their bylaws said... and even if they did, it wasn't going to be enough for the residents. So the residents appealed to the funny thing they call the LAW.
You can't escape the laaaaaaaawng arrhm uv tha' laaaaaaaw. See Bob Loblaw's Law Blog for details.
This became a DPD issue because the law dictates the boundaries of what condo associations can dis/allow condo owners to do.
For example, you could have a condo association that votes to allow owners to discriminate against new owners on the basis of skin color. The DPD (or the courts) would rule that bylaw illegal and order the condo association to change.
So no matter what the condo associations want to do, or how many owners support it, the city has ruled it's not legal to have short-term (under 30 day) rentals of condos.
So, in this case, some owners wanted the short-term rentals to be legal, some didn't, and they got a ruling that would supersede whatever the condo association said (which I don't know was pro/con short-term rentals, but it doesn't matter).
Since I'm talking to Bellevue Ave here, I really need to point him/her to this: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/07/questions_for_the_governor#c1090599
Good thing couch surfing is still legal though.
Maybe if we armed the renters and gave them bikes, they'd get respect ...
Wow, Amy Kate Horn must be gone gone gone....your proofing suxors
Um, what 7 said.
And the reason I was glib was that Bellevue's post was in fact incredibly stupid - invoking more of his classic free market faith-based libertarian B.S. in the face of something is clearly a legitimate role/responsibility of government.
Jonah. Dude. Proof read your proof reading. Please please please...
there was nothing pro free market in my initial response to this. try again.
and furthermore affordable housing still isn't affordable to the people on the lowest earners hotelier industry.
@13,
Um, yeah there was - you flatly stated that a private condo association was supposed to dictate the allowable uses in a given zone, which is simply not a decision that is theirs to make.
But I do agree with you @ 14.
Oops, minor addendum - "...in a given zone, or under an existing use permit..."
I was more genuinely curious as to this oversight than i was commenting on the failure of there being explicit uses outlined in the contract that was signed. And if the contract was in violation of the law why wasn't this addressed sooner?
Don't let my reputation for being critical of government bodies frame your responses to queries and genuine interest in why things went down the way they did.
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.