Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« She Don't Need No Stinkin' ID | Hotel Deathwatch »

Thursday, July 31, 2008

City Reaffirms Condo Rental Ruling

posted by on July 31 at 15:26 PM

The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) has reaffirmed an earlier ruling (PDF link) barring condo owners from renting out their units as hotel rooms.

The decision comes after a heated battle between condo owners at the Elektra condominium building, who filed a complaint tenants with DPD about short-term tenants last year.

Some owners at the Elektra had been renting their units for three or four days at a time, which drew complaints from neighbors who were worried about security and noise in the building.

Following DPD’s ruling, owners at the Elektra will only allowed to rent their units to tenants for a minimum of 30 days.

I’ve got a call in to DPD to see if Elektra owners will face any fines for previous short-term rental violations.

RSS icon Comments


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.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | July 31, 2008 3:30 PM

Well, they evidently didn't or, if they did, they were at odds with this funny thing they call the LAW.

Posted by Mr. X | July 31, 2008 3:35 PM

What kind of crackerjacks buy and sell property in this town?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | July 31, 2008 3:54 PM

Jonah. Dude. Proof read. Please.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | July 31, 2008 3:57 PM

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.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | July 31, 2008 4:03 PM

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.

Posted by Hey wait | July 31, 2008 4:21 PM

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).

Posted by jcricket | July 31, 2008 4:29 PM

Since I'm talking to Bellevue Ave here, I really need to point him/her to this:

Posted by Hey wait | July 31, 2008 4:42 PM

Good thing couch surfing is still legal though.

Maybe if we armed the renters and gave them bikes, they'd get respect ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 31, 2008 4:43 PM

Wow, Amy Kate Horn must be gone gone gone....your proofing suxors

Posted by Non | July 31, 2008 4:58 PM

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.

Posted by Mr. X | July 31, 2008 5:42 PM

Jonah. Dude. Proof read your proof reading. Please please please...

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | July 31, 2008 7:09 PM

there was nothing pro free market in my initial response to this. try again.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 1, 2008 8:50 AM

and furthermore affordable housing still isn't affordable to the people on the lowest earners hotelier industry.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 1, 2008 8:52 AM


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.

Posted by Mr. X | August 1, 2008 10:45 AM

Oops, minor addendum - " a given zone, or under an existing use permit..."

Posted by Mr. X | August 1, 2008 10:47 AM

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.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | August 1, 2008 11:26 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.